Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZBA-06/03/2021 Hearing
Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 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 June 3, 2021 10:09 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 June 3, 2021 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Heather Lanza #7500 7-10 William R. Ahmuty and Joellen Ahmuty#7495 10- 15 Petros and Penny Tsekouras#7499 15 - 16 F. I. Weathervane Enterprise, LLC#7496 17 - 18 Claudia King Ramone #7497 19 - 21 Cecilia Ott and Endre Meszaros#7510 21- 24 David Rohde#7503 24- 27 Peter Torkelsen #7506 30- 32 Jonathan Babkow and Maia Rubin #7514 32- 35 Marcel and Shelley Dzama #7515 35 - 37 Vincent Bertault#7467 38 -92 Vincent Bertault#7468SE 38 - 92 2 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is the June 3, 2021 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Good morning everyone I'm Leslie Weisman the Chair of the ZBA. 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 June 3, 2021 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. The first matter before the Board is well let me do SEAR we've already done Executive Session and the Work Session. New application, Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR, Part 617.5 © including the following: Heather Lanza, William Ahmuty and Joellen Ahmuty, Petros and Penny Tsekouras, F.I. Weathervane Enterprise LLC, Claudia King Ramone, Cecilia Ott and Endre Meszaros, David Rhode, Peter Torkelson, Jonathan Babkow and Maia Rubin and Marcel and Shelley Dzama so moved, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor of the SEAR Resolution raise your hand.The motion carries. Alright we have a possible resolution to close the following hearing, Diakovasilis #74655E. This was adjourned from May 20th. I think we should be able to close this. Does any Board Member see any issue as to why we shouldn't close this hearing at this time? MEMBER LEHNERT : Nope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will say we don't have a draft decision available yet cause we weren't a hundred percent sure that we were going to close this so I will then make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? 3 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 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. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. We have two other applications proposed to be closed today, Leon Petroleum the Mattituck site #7493 and Leon Petroleum the Peconic BP gas station#7494. I'm going to make a motion to close both of those hearings,we can do it as one motion. Is there a second to that? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Planamento seconds it. 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? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. As I said we don't have a draft for the Diakovasilis application yet. I will put that on for the next Special Meeting Agenda for June 17th at which time we will deliberate on a decision. Leon Petroleum let's look first at 7493, we do 4 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 have drafts to deliberate on for both of those applications. Everybody have their copy and you all read them? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's review some of the substantive things. Let's start on the Mattituck location which is the first one? Let's take a look at that. Nick would you highlight some of the information. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely, the applicant requests relief to they're actually asking for five variances at Leon Petroleum 16900 NYS Route 25 in Mattituck. It's a gas station, they're seeking the five variances to replace existing signage. There are three non-permitted internally roof signs on the canopy over the two gas pumps. Additionally they are looking to replace a free standing sign that exceeds the code requirements as far as height and square footage. Interestingly it came up during the public hearing that there is no site plan on file despite a court order that was or a stipulation back in 1992 requiring them to go through site plan, the process was started but abandoned. I don't know what else to really add, it's an area with preserved land and it's a residential area. It's truly agricultural, I'm completely surprised that there is no documentation whatsoever about anything and that they're operating within town as a functioning business and a gas station. The draft basically spells it all out that the applicant did provide certain documents relative to the site but not anything to substantiate any signage or any use or site plan as I said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, we actually asked staff in both these applications to scour our town records through the Building Department records and Assessor's Office and Planning Board site plan approvals and so on and we were quite surprised to see the long history of non- compliance with any of the town codes. I mean there's no reference to signage. There is in one instance a location for a sign but no explanation at all about what kind of sign, no permits were ever issued for any of these signs and none of them conform to dark sky compliance at all. They have every opportunity to be able to provide proper down lighting and so on and in this case we're looking at a 100% relief relative to the internal lighting assigned, 150%relief from the code relative to the size of the free standing sign and 24.6% relief from the code relative to the height of the free standing sign. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I see no reason why they can't comply, nothing is legitimately there. There's no history, there's no record of anything and as you said you requested staff to do some research and at the time of the public hearing you also asked the applicant to do the same which we learned on June 1St they actually responded that they have no commentary. 5 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they found no other-additional information and we gave them time to respond to anything we made available to them. So alright I think we're ready to make Nick do you want to make the motion? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I make a motion to deny the application as applied for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll second it. Call the roll Kim 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. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. The next application is for the same type of situation #7494 Leon Petroleum in Peconic. Here they did have site plan approval but again no reference whatsoever to signage and the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And the signage the numbers while it's the same five variances requested the variances are substantially greater. MEMBER LEHNERT : We can also say the most recently approved gas station in town has to comply with all the town codes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right. I mean there is simply all kinds of opportunity for dark sky compliance to be observed with (inaudible) night lighting and the Board is reluctant to approve anything that has a long history of being there without permits when they can easily comply. Okay so in this case I'll make the motion to deny the application 6 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to say for the record we might want to share even though it's in print in the decision that the substantiality it's 100% relief from the code relative to internally lit signs which the code does not allow, 312.5% relief from the code relative to the size of the free standing sign, it's huge and 60% relief from the code relative to the height. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well substantiality in and of itself is not determinative, it is an important consideration particularly if they are ways to mitigate and to reduce those impacts. Okay so I'm making a motion to deny as applied for, second from anybody? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Second from Nick, 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. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. Alright we're now going to start the public hearings. HEARING#7500- HEATHER LANZA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application is #7500 Heather Lanza. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's March 19, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to reconstruct a deck addition to an existing 7 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 single family dwelling at 1) resulting in an existing accessory garage located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 2200 Yennecott Drive in Southold. Hi Heather. HEATHER LANZA : Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know we've all visited the site. We've inspected the property as we do with all applications.You want to replace your small deck with a larger one which means that your accessory garage which has been there forever and is not being moved in any way is going to be partially in a side yard as a result instead of all of it in the rear yard. Is there anything else you want to tell us about this? HEATHER LANZA : No, I guess I just wanted to say just so everyone knows I did clock out so I'm on my own personal time attending this hearing. No just that we would like to have a slightly larger deck and I guess that puts the garage in the side yard and I think we're going from 7 feet 8 inches deep to 16 feet and that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have plenty of room and there's no rear yard setback problems with a larger deck. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's one of those technicalities. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly, these are the kinds of things we wish we didn't have to actually deal with because if something like that accessory garage legally exists with a Certificate of Occupancy it's a legally existing structure. This just simply becomes you know one of these technicalities the Building Department I guess requires us to grant variances for but they are just that. I mean there are no adverse impacts at all. It won't be seen by anybody, in fact the garage is going to hide it from the side yard. I have no questions or further comments. Does anyone on the Board want to say anything? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I do if I may.Just because it is sort of a technicality as Rob pointed out, what would happen if at some later point for Heather if she ever wants to roof it over or expand and make it into livable space, would she have to come back before the Board again or how would that play out in the future? HEATHER LANZA : I had that question too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Decks typically are when approved conditioned as open to the sky to remain open to the sky. We have had situations where people have come back years later and they wanted to expand their dining room over part of the deck and they have reapplied to the Board to do that and generally they've been successful in obtaining those variances but it would require an additional 8 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 HEATHER LANZA : Even though it's not the deck that's not conforming? I mean the thing that's non-conforming now would be the garage wouldn't it? T. A. DUFFY : Exactly, what you're approving is the garage, you're not approving the deck you're approving the garage which is now in a non-conforming location. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's correct. Oh yeah of course, I'm sorry you're absolutely right it's not the deck that's so we wouldn't be conditioning anything on the deck. That would be a call of the Building Department. That was good that you brought it up, I misspoke I'm so used to decks. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have the deck in my head cause I'm thinking if somebody wants to roof it over or screen it in that presents a unique challenge. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They can do it with a building permit. BOARD ASSISTANT : The worst case would be that the Building Department would require a deminimus letter to the Zoning Board. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Well I think it's important that it's here in the public hearing as a matter of the record and I'm fine. I understand that we're talking about the garage again. I got sidetracked by the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Me too. That's strictly a Building Department call you would need a building permit, you're just making an additional habitable room or whatever you want to do. HEATHER LANZA : I have one more question if that's okay, if this is approved would the garage then be a non-conforming building and if I did something to the garage say I wanted to expand it would I have to come back for a variance or is that unknown at this time? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think I can answer that, can you Bill? T. A. DUFFY : I wouldn't say it's non-conforming but it is yeah it would be in a non-conforming location you have a variance where it is now but if you were extending it or going up the Building Department would probably say you need a variance to do that. HEATHER LANZA : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anyone?Anyone in the attendee list who wants to address the application please raise your hand or send us a chat. Hearing nothing 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. 9 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 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. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Good morning everyone, if anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask you that you send us a note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen or click the raise hand button and we will allow you to unmute and then you can let us know which application you are here for. Thank you. HEARING#7495—WILLIAM R. AHMUTY and JOELLEN AHMUTY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for William R. Ahmuty and Joellen Ahmuty#7495. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 5, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a deck addition to a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the-code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard of 25 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage at 20% located at 3405 Bayview Rd. in Greenport. Good morning Pat. PAT MOORE : Good morning everyone, thank you. I have Mr. Ahmuty and Mrs. Ahmuty here in my conference room. I have Mr. Ahmuty here in your screen but here I'll just show you only 10 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 because I can't push this further back. Mr. Ahmuty is actually as you know he is an attorney now retired. He for many years actually represented the town I think on disability cases if I remember and other litigations so just you'll recognize the name. I think you're all too young but yes he was I remember him when he was representing the town so there is no conflict at this point but we're just putting it on the record. Mr. Ahmuty and Mrs. Ahmuty they have their house on Bayshore Rd. and as you know you're very familiar with Bayshore Rd.,the properties there are significantly non-conforming. The house was placed at 9.8 on the side yard which I think was an intention to meet the 10 foot but depending on how a surveyor measures the foundation was placed at 10 feet and now the siding is at 9.8. you can have some deviations. So the variance for the side yard is minimal, the house is significantly primarily conforming with regard to the side yards. With regard to the deck, I did provide to you the similar variances that were granted right in the same neighborhood and you can see that the lot coverage calculations in this neighborhood are for the most part on average I would say 23 to 24%. 1 gave you the let's see I have several of them listed, 26%, 23.8%, 26% so you can see that unfortunately when you're dealing with such small properties and the fact that the property is reduced in its size by the bulkhead it leaves it even smaller parcel than the original deeded parcel. So we're dealing with lot coverage calculations that have very small structure will impact the lot coverage. I also sent you prior to this hearing on May 251h I sent you a picture of the back of the house,for one I wanted you to see that we did outline the deck so it would be easily inspected. Also so you can see Mr. Ahmuty is disabled, he is presently able to I guess walk minimally with the walker however his condition is deteriorating and most likely in the very near future he sees himself having to in a wheelchair. We anticipate that what is now a sliding door may have to convert to some kind of French door to open to provide a larger opening for a wheelchair. The house is very comfortable for them, it's all one story however getting into the house is a challenge, he can only come in through the front door which has a very small stoop since the property is I guess the grade of the property is higher in the front yard than it is in the rear yard. Eventually potentially requiring some kind of a ramp in the front. Fortunately for now he can get himself that one stoop in. In the rear he has no access to the back of his property. He has been for the most part and certainly through COVID he has been stuck inside not able to access the back of his house and enjoy fresh air and so on so this has multiple purposes. Really it gives him access to the outside to the back of his property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat excuse me just one second, let me just first of all reiterate what variances are before the Board. You indicated correctly that the single side yard setback of 9.8 feet where the code requires a minimum of 10 will be maintained that's where the existing house is. PAT MOORE : Correct. 11 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a combined side yard setback of 21.5 feet where the code requires a minimum of 25 and you're proposing 22.8% lot coverage where the maximum permitted by code is 20%. 1 think you've made your argument about lot coverage based on priors in the neighborhood. With all due respect I want to say this, I have worked for thirty five, forty years with the ADA with in fact helping to write the compliance standards. I was one of the first to pioneer in the United States universal design. You will find no greater advocate for anyone with any kind of disability than me but I must remind you respectfully that this Board has no ability to look at personalizing any of these variances. The personal circumstances the house could be sold tomorrow.The personal circumstances are simply not an argument.that this Board can entertain for granting variances. I think you're on solid ground when it comes to the actual variances on the basis of the character of the neighborhood, the substantiality and all the other state statutes that we have to apply in reaching a decision based on the balancing test. So that's why I tried to just stop this because I just find it very uncomfortable to be in the strange position of having to disregard someone with a mobility problem but it is what it is. My obligation is to uphold the law as written and not as I personally feel about how it should be. We can apply those laws on commercial properties, ADA is applicable there because the public is invited in but in private residences you know very well that personalizing is simply not something that we should be able to entertain. Let's see if the Board has any questions, anything from anybody Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I would say you know Pat could the deck be you know maybe made smaller to 10 feet rather than the 12 feet? PAT MOORE : Well again I know you don't want to personalize it but for mobility on the deck and being able to place tables, chairs and still have circulation for a wheelchair the width the 12 feet really is going to make things easier for the family. I did very carefully we looked all around to see if we could provide some lot coverage you know donate some lot coverage and we did come up with the surveyor when he was calculating the lot coverage you see on the survey there's an outdoor shower on the side, the decking there is not calculated cause it's all on grade so that's not counted. But there is an outdoor shower that has a lot of structure around it, when it was built it has thick walls and it's sided and we double checked with the surveyor if we were to eliminate the structure they still may need an outdoor shower but certainly nothing as elaborate as it is. The grandkids can shower with just a little fence enclosure and you know an exterior shower head,they don't need such a large structure around it.So we were able to let's say donate to the cause, reduce the lot coverage by 32 sq. ft. which brings the lot coverage down to let me just double check here I want to make sure okay to 22.4% so instead of the 22.8 it's 22.4%. You can verify those numbers it's very simple math but I took the lot coverage the surveyor provided subtracted by 32 sq. ft. and was able to bring the lot coverage the house and roof over stoops and you know horizontal coverage to 1,318 and still maintain the deck with the size that they 12 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 really feel is certainly justified here as I said with amount of lot coverage that has historically been granted on the properties on this street. So we could give that up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So do you need Trustees approval? PAT MOORE : We will need Trustees approval for this. It is adjacent technically adjacent to wetlands so yes we will be going to the Trustees. We have a non-turf buffer already there, stone set in sand not grouted so when the bulkhead was replaced the Trustees had a non-turf buffer if I remember correctly on the permits here already as a condition so we think it's all doable and we can go to the Trustees and hopefully again there are lots of structures here surrounding and I looked at neighboring houses and because they're patios they're the same distance to the wetlands they're just because they're patios they don't have to come in for variances but that option obviously does not exist here. I understand the non-personal but you do have to keep in mind the I want to use the old term practical difficulties here but the circumstances here that don't provide for alternatives for access. So I'm hoping,that the 32 sq.ft.would be our good faith effort to reduce the lot coverage to a more conforming. We don't have a variance for setbacks from the water or from the bulkhead so that is not a variance issue it's really lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well we'll take a look at the priors that you submitted and if in fact it turns out that the average variances for lot coverage is around 23 to 24% as you just said then I think you have a strong argument for precedent. Anything else from any Board Members? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes just a point of clarification, the survey notes or the Notice of Disapproval notes 9.8 feet the single side yard but the survey shows the house at the closest point at 9.7 feet. It's a minor detail but shouldn't it be 9.7 feet not 9.8? PAT MOORE : Well I think that they were measuring because of the deck. I don't think they're considering this like an increase in the degree of non-conformity to the house because it's an accessory but you know again I kind of rely on the Building Department. They had this survey so if the Building I mean if you double check with the Building Department we'll CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You know what, it's probably it's likely that they did it from the corner where the deck is proposed MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I'm thinking cause they're extending the profile of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. The house is clearly not perfectly, perfectly parallel to the property line so there's like an inch difference or something at one corner and the other so we'll go with the 9.8 cause that's what they're proposing to do they're putting it at that end of the house. 13 5 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just wasn't sure and I think that's exactly what the intent was the extension versus the house and the only other question I wanted to ask Pat if I may, it's a proposed deck but is there any proposal to extend a roof over this deck or to enclose it in any way or to create a balcony on the second floor etc.? PAT MOORE : No there's no second floor it's a one story. Well I have an answer for you, it is a one story or is it two story. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a two story house. PAT MOORE : Oh I'm sorry it is two story I apologize.You know what it's a cathedral ceiling in the living room so that's why when I was in the house it looks straight up so I see the survey is two story. Fortunately I have clients to correct me when I really screw up so no I asked that question of them,the most that they might do if it gets really hot is just an awning the retractable awnings but that's not generally considered a structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's fine. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's not for our consideration so typically as you probably know whenever relief is granted it would say that it will remain open to the sky etc. and that's something that's acceptable to the applicant? PAT MOORE :Yeah no problem just make sure that the well the record will reflect that an awning is not considered a structural roof. I never know what the Building Department is going to interpret so any other questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? If so please let us know raise your hand or send us a chat. Hearing no further comments or questions I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date,is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? 14 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 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. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7499—PETROS and PENNY TSEKOURAS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application in front of the Board is #7499 Petros and Penny Tsekouras. Request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's March 15, 2021 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 1852 North Bayview Rd. (adj. to Goose Creek) in Southold. We've all been out to inspect the property as we do with all applications and we see that you have a very oddly shaped lot on Goose Creek and it looks like your sanitary system is in the conforming front yard and that prevents you from locating a swimming pool in the front yard which would be conforming given that it's waterfront. We're trying to avoid wetland setback here also. PAT MOORE :Yes I actually I have an application with the D.E.C.,the D.E.C. really had no comment I was surprised. They asked me for some additional measurements because the pool itself is 108 feet to the wetlands which as far as the D.E.C. is concerned so we are conforming the only thing that the Trustees might review here is the patio, pavers and fence. You can see from your inspection really the rear of the house is where this pool is proposed. It's where the kids jungle gym that will probably have to move somewhere but this is the most logical location for a pool. We obviously don't want to push it any further into the it's kind of an unusual property, it's the peninsula into Goose Creek. So that area has been left natural for the most part, it's very wooded and you don't really see in fact this property goes as deep into Goose Creek as it actually does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the house is really set back far from the road and it really is in the architectural rear yard it's the part of the house you use the back yard. It's not going to be visible to any other properties. It's heavily screened, generous setbacks and I happen to agree it's in the most logical location on that property. Let's see if any Board Members have any questions, anything from you Rob? 15 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 MEMBER LEHNERT : No this is it's an odd shaped lot so I understand what's going on here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nothing no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address the application. If so raise your hand please or send us a chat. No hearing anything. 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 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. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. We'll have a decision in two weeks at our Special Meeting where we'll be deliberating. 16 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 HEARING#7496—F.I. WEATHERVANE ENTERPRISE, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Fishers Island Weathervane Enterprise, LLC #7496. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280- 14 and the Building Inspector's March 7, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit for a lot line change at 1) Lot 1 measuring less than the minimum code required lot size of 120,000 sq.ft., 2) Lot 2 measuring less than the minimum code required lot size of 120,000 sq. ft., 3) Lot 1 measuring less than the code required minimum lot width of 200 feet located at Off East End Rd. on Fishers Island. So we're looking at this is an R120 zone. Lot 1 is going to conforming STEVE HAM : Neither are currently conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Neither are conforming. Lot 1 is going to 58,239 sq. ft. the code requires 120, 71.89 feet wide where the code requires 200 feet. Lot 2 is going to be 74,551 sq.ft. where again the code requires 120 and this all requires Planning Board approval. Planning Board did submit comments in support of these two variances and it looks like so you're decreasing one lot 1 by 1,733 sq. ft. to become part of lot 2. Both are building sites, both are developed and it's really I guess to remedy the problem where what is it a patio? STEVE HAM : Patio and retaining wall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah are kind of straddling the property line. STEVE HAM :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did get your memorandum of law as always,totally thorough and articulate and the only reason I took the liberty of summarizing this quickly is because we're so far behind. If there's something you'd like to add STEVE HAM : I couldn't have said it better the way you described it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you hired me huh? STEVE HAM : Absolutely, although I don't like meeting like this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Neither do we. Zoom has wonderful options which I hope we will retain when we are able to be back at the meeting hall being able to project and share screens like this with the public either who is in attendance on Zoom or who is in the meeting hall and could never see the darn survey anyway unless they came up to the dais but STEVE HAM : Right it has some advantage yes but I don't mind driving to Southold. 17 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's always nice to see you but at least we can hear you. Alright is there anything from the Board on this one? Any comments or questions from Board Members on this? Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's logical. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. It's cleaning up paperwork really and it's supported by the Planning Board it still has to go through due process though. Is there anyone in the attendees list who wants to address the application? Okay, hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. 18 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 HEARING#7497- CLAUDIA KING RAMONE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Claudia King Ramone #7497. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's February 24, 2021 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 rear yard setback of 35 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 130 Village Lane in Orient. Hi Martin. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Hi Leslie, good morning everybody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I've read into the record what the Legal Notice indicated and what we're doing is converting the porch on the rear of the house to habitable living space it looks like a 61 sq. ft. addition to that just sort of squaring off the back of the house right? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Results in a rear yard setback of 21 feet where the code requires 35, lot coverage of 26.7% where the maximum permitted is 20%. The existing is 25.35% by the way and the existing house is 960 sq. ft. so it's only 1.37% increase or 55 sq. ft.. You do need a Certificate of Appropriateness from HPC which I believe you already obtained. MARTIN FINNEGAN :Yes we got that in October 2020. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We also received four letters of support from neighbors which I just want to put into the record. Certainly the rear and side yards have really large hedgerow screening anything back there from anybody else's vision. It's a very small addition and conversion, it won't be seen from the street. I think that about kind of summarizes what's before the Board. Let me see if any Board Members have any questions, Nick anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I think it's pretty clear cut, I was happy to see the HPC letter. I am curious and I sort of know the history of this particular house and I'm happy to see that things are progressing to save it, it needs a little love. The question I ask is, because there's going to be a new basement access,the conversion of this porch knowing the age and history of the home is there a plan to lift the house to alter the foundation in any way or anything that would bring it even into the realm of a demolition? Not a demolition but by the value standpoint of a demolition. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think it's going to be there is going to be some interior foundation digging to sure it up in the back but it's not going to be a demo, we went through this Mike and we discussed it at length with the HPC obviously they would never allow a type of a demolition that's why we did not succeed ten years ago with the application. It really is about Claudia enjoying and 19 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 being able to maintain this home that has been in their family for generations and make it livable for their family and with their children. It's just obviously a super small house right now but it has a lot of sentimental value to them. It's the gateway to the village and so this is really the minimum necessary to convert the house to habitable space. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Understood thank you Martin. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No this is pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie just one question unrelated but related, I don't know if everyone- else got it in the packet and since we're not together I don't have the liberty of talking individually, within my packet there was a second survey for MARTIN FINNEGAN : It was a mistake,just MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I thought it was a mistake but MARTIN FINNEGAN : got in the scanner I'm sorry about that. Kim just rip that out of there but thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? BOARD ASSISTANT : I don't see any raised hands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing okay, hearing no further questions or comments 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? 20 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 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. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously we'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7510 CECILIA OTT and ENDRE MESZAROS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Cecilia Ott and Endre Meszaros #7510. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's April 6, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an as built shed and an as built hot tub at 1) shed is located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) hot tub is located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 1225 Arrowhead Lane in Peconic. Anthony Portillo is here. BOARD ASSISTANT : I also promoted Cecilia Ott. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we've been out to inspect the property and we see the location of the shed, we see the location of the hot tub. We know there's a swimming pool in a conforming rear yard. I'm curious the first question I have is in the application the application states that the hardship is not self-created,why is that there's no reason it just says no it's not self-created,why is that not self-created? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good morning Board, thank you for your time today. To answer your question, the current owners purchased the house and it was in that condition, the shed was existing and the hot tub was also existing in that location which was noted during the sale of the home and they actually contacted me prior to purchasing and I explained to them what the process would be to legalize and they want to make sure everything is legal. They don't want non-conforming I mean they don't want illegal structures. 21 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course, I just want to be because technically when somebody you just made the point actually, when someone purchases the property the assumption has to be that they have to know what the law would allow prior to purchasing so it's clear that they did and they're just following the procedure. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's actually correct thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We consider that self-created. That's not determinative anyway I mean it's one of the standards but not completely. Well I do have to ask this, so can that shed be moved to a conforming rear yard location? MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's a big shed. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right it's a large shed and there would be I think financially to move it would probably make more sense just to demo it and build somewhere else to be honest with you. I think it'll probably be a pretty decent cost to get a machine in there, move it you know provide a sturdy foundation to sit it on top of. It might be sort of a wash or you know the delta would be that large that it made sense to move it. I mean that's sort of the reason that we're trying to get it legalized and approved by the Board so that they don't have to go through that financial burden. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right well I mean I had to ask the question in the record that's our job but the bottom line is the shed is actually screening the hot tub from the street and it's setback quite a far distance from the road. It's very screened by mature vegetation. MEMBER ACAMPORA :The neighbors can't even see the shed or the hot tub it's very far away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Also just from my clients discussion, we don't have anything in writing but from the neighbors didn't have any opposition to the shed and the location of the shed. We did a little research and we did find another side yard shed that was approved by the Board actually I think it was on Arrowhead Lane 590 there was approval sorry there was an accessory cabana building on the side yard. I can send this to Kim and then also on Pine Tree Rd. in Cutchogue I know isn't in Peconic but close and the radius side yard shed was approved by the Board. So I can provide these approvals,just wanted to state that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well in this instance you know the shed could be moved, it creates other problems. It would be hard to use in the back yard for one thing and to me and I'm just one voice on this Board the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the community in this particular case. It would be better if you have a prior. I don't think we need 22 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 one from-a far location but if you have the one on Arrowhead Lane send that in to Kim that would be useful. Let's see if the Board has anything, Eric do you have any questions or comments? MEMBER DANTES : No I don't not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : Not really, it was interesting going here this was one of my early projects. The first renovations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fun to see right, okay Pat how about you anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, I just you know I commend the new owners for wanting to straighten this out because they actually bought this house knowing that they were going to have to do something so it put them in a bind. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I was just going to say I commend them as well because you usually don't see that. A lot of people just keep it as a non-compliant issue and not deal with it. They were forthcoming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing I was wondering, when I look at the packet and I'm fine with the application as it is but given the size of the shed, does it need a C. 0.? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes Nick it does. I believe it's 12 x 10 it's a little over 120 sq. ft. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you will apply for the if relief is granted you will then apply for the C. 0. for the shed? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anything else from Board Members?Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? 23 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 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. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7503— DAVID RHODE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David Rhode #7503. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's February 22, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to install an accessory generator at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 1615 Anchor Lane (adj.to Shelter Island Sound) in Southold. So this proposed generator is to be in a side yard, good morning and as you know we've all been out to inspect the property and so it's like 11.7 sq. ft. in size and you're proposing to locate it sort of midway between the in-ground propane tank which it needs to be connected to and the electrical meter which it needs to be connected to. It's just the most convenient place for the run the most cost effective. Again, it's not going to be very visible to anybody, you have dramatic hedgerow all along that side. I don't see definitely any impact on anyone. Let's see if the Board Members is there anything you'd like to tell us about anything just mentioned? DAVID RHODE :Just that it is really the only location that it suitably fits on the property given the way the house and yard is situated and it is fully screened from the street and from the neighbor's side yard by hedges, gates and driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well personally I don't understand something as benign as a generator you know it's like an air-conditioning unit or something why that couldn't be in a side yard why MEMBER DANTES : Usually the auto ones you turn them on once a week and they're pretty loud during that test period. 24 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep I know but you know what, I have one too and it is loud but the bottom line is they're all loud and it would be just as loud in the back yard. If you move it four feet that way it's still going to be the same noise impact on the neighbor. It's not a setback a property line setback it's just the location. Alright let's see if anybody has any questions here, Nick anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah I do have a question, I've installed a lot of these and I understand why you want to keep it close to the meter is the LP tank already installed? DAVID RHODE : Yes sir. MEMBER LEHNERT : It is, and what's the really the reason we can't have it in the rear yard because there's really no reason you can't run X amount a distance from an LP tank and run an electrical cable back to the house. DAVID RHODE : It's a matter of cost. This is the most cost effective way to do it and to some degree aesthetics. It would keep it out of the back yard which is the only piece of the yard that is where it is now is the only piece of the yard that isn't seen when you're using and enjoying the back yard like for badminton, croquet or whatever. It would be in the way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions from you? I think that was a good question to ask. The record that we create public hearings needs to reflect you know as many reasons as we can think of with regard to these things. To me again it appears that the benefit to the applicants certainly outweighs any detriment to any other in the community. Again we will weight that. We will write up a decision just so you know David and have it available in two weeks at our next meeting. That's an open meeting to the public, again it's on Zoom. It's usually the public comes in at 5 o'clock if they want to. There's no testimony, it's not a hearing. We're going to close the hearing it's just if you want to listen to us deliberate on the decision we're making. DAVID RHODE :Okay,one other point I'll add is that I have spoken to Jeff and Samantha Heidtman they are the neighbors next door and they have no objection to the placement of the generator and if it would help I can have them draft a letter and submit it. 25 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think your testimony is okay but if the Board wants it in the record it's helpful. It's always helpful to have a neighbor supporting an application when they're the one that has any impact. So why not, why don't we do that. DAVID RHODE : I'll contact them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It can be an email. It doesn't have to be a big deal, you can have them email Kim and she'll forward it to us. She'll print it up and put in the record just to make it as easy as possible and as quick as possible. DAVID RHODE : Thank you very much. I do have one other question if I may, if the Board grants this request do I then go back for a new building permit or can I proceed to just install it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Department will get a copy of this decision granting you the right to put it where you're proposing to put it. You have a Notice of Disapproval you don't have a building permit right? DAVID RHODE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you'll have to go back in and get the building permit and then you can install it. Based on the decision that you can now put it where you want to. DAVID RHODE :Thank you very much I appreciate your time and your office has been really, really helpful having a lay person navigate this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well I'm glad to hear it,we always like to hear praise for your excellent staff. They do go the extra mile trying to help people. DAVID RHODE : Indeed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're very proud of that attitude for public service. Okay anything I don't think there was anybody in the audience but I'll ask it again, raise your hand please if there's anyone here to speak about this. You want to close it subject to receipt of the letter just to be clear? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Why don't we close it just in case I mean I'm sure the Heidtmans if he if the applicant said that would do it but why don't wejust close it whetherwe have the testimony or not they were afforded the opportunity. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright that's fine we'll just close it but we still would like to get it. We're closing the hearing but if you close it subject to receipt it just means the clock for sixty two days from the time we have to render a decision legally starts when we get the letter. It's 26 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 technical it's not that important one way or the other. Alright I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. 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. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously and we'll have a decision in two weeks. DAVID RHODE :Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Resolution of the next Regular Meeting of public hearings to be held Thursday,July 1, 2021 at 9 a.m., so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Nick. All in favor raise your hands please. The motion carries unanimously everyone voted aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held May 20, 2021 so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. 27 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Seconded by Pat, raise your hands if you agree to approve.The motion carries unanimously. Resolution to grant a one year extension for Appeal #7127 dated May 17, 2018 to Kevin and Nancy Foote. Everyone has read the request right, Kim forwarded that the reasons and so on and they are conforming to what they're obligated by law to do which is to make this request before their expiration date takes place. I make a motion to grant that extension, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Seconded by Rob.All in favor raise your hands please. Everyone raised their hands the motion carries unanimously. The next one is a resolution to grant a three month extension for approval condition of Appeal #7396 Anthony Tartaglia and James Howell dated November 19, 2020. Again everyone has copies what that's all about. Okay any discussion on that? No okay I make a motion to grant a three month extension as requested. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, all in favor raise your hands please. The motion carries unanimously. Then is a final resolution to extend determination of variance relief for ZBA File #7099. I'm going to read the whole thing into the record. We previously voted on'a resolution to extend the determination based upon final wording from the Town Attorney.What is now before us is a resolution with that final wording so I'm going to read it into the record so that it's accurately reflected the reasons for approval of determining that variance relief. Whereas the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals the Board has received a written request for an extension of the variance relief from the applicant through their attorney on file #7099 for Edward and Diane Daley located at 1550 Paradise Point Rd. in Southold more particularly known as SCTM#1000-81-3-23. Whereas the Board notes and the applicant acknowledges that the request for an extension has been made after the date on which the variance expired and whereas Section 280-146(8) requires that a written request for an extension be made prior to the expiration of the variance and whereas the applicant's attorney has requested that the applicant not be required to reapply for the expired variance relief on various grounds, including but not limited to the completion of the project the recent expiration of the variance, a delay caused by a stop work order delays, caused by a shutdown of construction due to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as delays caused thereafter by shortages in the supply chain due to the COVID- 19 pandemic and whereas the Board pursuant to Section 280-146(8) has the power to vary any regulation contained in Chapter 280 so that the spirit of the chapter is observed, public safety and welfare preserved and that substantial justice is done including the requirement that a written request for an extension must be provided prior to expiration of the variance and whereas the Board has determined that based upon the factors set forth by the applicant's attorney as cited above that in this instance it is necessary for the Board to vary the requirement 28 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 that a written request for an extension be made prior to the expiration of a variance therefore be it RESOLVED,the Board with regard to the request for an extension of the variance granted in file #7099 elects to vary the requirement that a written request must be made prior to the expiration of the variance and be it further RESOLVED the Board hereby grants a sixty (60) day extension of the variance relief granted in File #7099 from the date of the May 20, 2021 Special Meeting to expire on August 2, 2021, so moved. I make that motion is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. In this case Kim please call the roll. 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. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. Alright well we have some time till the next hearing at 1 o'clock so I'm going to make a motion to recess until 1 o'clock. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acamopra. Raise your hands if you're ready to reconvene. Let the record show that everyone voted aye. We are now reconvening the June 3rd Regular Meeting of the Board of Appeals. Before we get to the next application Peter Torkelsen I have a very brief resolution that I would like to bring before the Board, this is pursuant to Chapter 280-146(B) powers and duties of the Board of Appeals, the Board now resolves to grant 29 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 a sixty (60) day extension from the date of this Resolution to expire on August 3, 2021 of the variance relief granted in ZBA file #7014 Captain Red's Marine Sales Inc. subject to the review of approval of the final text by the Town Attorney, so moved. Is there a second on that resolution? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. Kim will you call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. I'll send that off to Bill and we'll get final text from him as soon as possible. Liz you can let John know that that happened. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Good afternoon everyone, if anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask that you send us a note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen or click the raise hand button and we will allow to unmute and let us know which application you are here for. If you are using a phone please press *9 to raise your hand and we will ask you who you are here for. Thank you. HEARING # 7506— PETER TORKELSEN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Peter Torkelsen #7506. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's 30 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 March 25, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" deck addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 800 Summer Lane in Southold. This is a deck addition on the rear of the property with a rear yard setback of 28.4 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. RYAN SIDOR : My name is Ryan Sidor I work for Robert Brown. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else you would like us to know about this rear yard setback this deck addition? RYAN SIDOR : No it's pretty straightforward. The deck was built some time ago and it's just like you said it's 28 feet 4 inches yep there you go from the rear yard and the 35 foot setback is the problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You said it was built some time ago. You know we do do site inspections on every property that comes before the Board prior to a public hearing, it certainly looks like it's brand new. RYAN SIDOR : I don't know the exact date, it's just you know it's an as built deck so it was built before we came onto to project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before you were involved but you don't know that certainly wasn't built long ago. It's very much shielded on the side yard by heavy vegetation and by an accessory garage and the rear yard is pretty well screened with heavy vegetation. It's not a huge setback issue let me see where this exact system okay so the deck is not impinging on the septic system. RYAN SIDOR : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, anything from Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Will the deck remain open to the sky? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that would be a condition of approval. RYAN SIDOR : We're not proposing any changes to the deck just for the (inaudible). 31 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this application make a comment on it? Please raise your hand or send us a chat. Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. HEARING # 7514—JONATHAN BABKOW and MAIA RUBIN BOARD ASSISTANT : The next hearing I don't recognize any attendees. The person that's representing I have is Nancy Steelman. I don't see her here so if anybody is representing I guess they have to raise their hand. 32 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there's somebody here for this application that's in attendance that's unusual. Well without anybody testifying on behalf of this application I think we're going to have to adjourn it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :You want to just move it on the calendar that way maybe Kim or that's unusual for Samuels and Steelman I think. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Why don't we have Donna or Liz give Nancy a call and see what's going on. Maybe she's just slightly delayed. We can't start on the next one. We're going to have to wait till 1:20 for the next one. We might as well sit here and wait for Nancy Steelman to come. I don't even want to read it into the record until we know that they're here. We have one more minute anyway I can't do it anyway. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie I have Nancy Steelman on the phone. She's going to use the phone and I will put her on speaker. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nancy can you hear us? I'm going to read this into the record now that you're here. Jonathan Babkow and Maia Rubin #7514 request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-105 and the Building Inspector's April 15, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an eight (8) foot fence surrounding a tennis court in the front yard at 1) more than the code permitted maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard located at 360 Private Rd. #8 (adj. to Dam Pond) in East Marion. So we have an eight (8) foot fence around the tennis court, the tennis court is there it has been for many years and basically you're renovating the tennis court and replacing the fence, is that right? NANCY STEELMAN : Yes that is correct. It's an existing tennis court that we're renovating we're actually going to create new had always an eight (8) foot fence as part of the original permit and we're going to maintain that eight (8) foot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you need Trustees approval because of the wetlands? NANCY STEELMAN : No because we're clearly out of the jurisdiction of the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay cause I know there's a very big setback. It's the oddest shaped lot, tiny little bit of frontage on Main Rd. and mostly it's a private right of way, driveway almost. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie,the applicant just indicated somethingthat I was goingto inquire about. There was a permit the tennis court was placed there legally, Nancy shared that the fence which we all can tell it's an old existing fence but was the permit originally granted with the original fence and if so why are they back here for a variance? NANCY STEELMAN : Very good question. 33 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know it's possible that the Building Department did not research the history of you know what was presented to them. MEMBER DANTES : Wait technically it would be a demolition if you're taking down the fence right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might be. Well you know it's one of these things where it's been up there thirty one years and it's going to be replaced in kind right? The fence is 100 foot setback from anywhere of 60 feet from the right of way and it is just not visible to any other property. That right of way is so densely packed with vegetation you can't even see into it until you turn into like where the house is being constructed. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's only a demolition and if you take the whole thing down at once. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't understand it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look, you know we're responding to the Notice of Disapproval and so is the applicant but as far as I can see it has no impact whatsoever on any property or any neighbor. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And a permit was previously issued for the tennis court so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's probably just one of these just replace in kind that requires anew relief because it's being renovated to the extent that it's being renovated. Are you resurfacing and everything Nancy? NANCY STEELMAN : We are resurfacing it and it's basically going to be a new court. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's why they did it. NANCY STEELMAN : We actually have a permit for this particular court with a four 4 foot fence so then we were (inaudible) in to get the increase to eight 8 to the ZBA. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah cause it's 8 feet now. What good is a 4 foot fence around a tennis court. Let me see if there's anybody or any questions from the Board? No okay let me see if there's anyone in the attendees that wants to address the application. BOARD ASSISTANT : I don't see any sort of hands up at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well then hearing no further questions or comments from the Board or 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 LEHNERT : Second. 34 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7515—MARCEL and SHELLEY DZAMA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Marcel and Shelley Dzama #7515. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's April 19, 2021 Notice if Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool and to legalize an existing accessory greenhouse at 1) pool is located in other than the code required rear yard, 2) greenhouse is located in other than the code required rear yard located at 1620 Koke Drive (adj. to Dam Pond) in Southold. So we have two accessory buildings, a greenhouse and we have a pool proposed in a side yard but in fact you have three front yards basically. Koke Drive is a pretty small you know private road and then you have a right of way on the other side and then you have Main Rd. Tell us whatever you'd like us to know about this application. JENNIFER DIVAGLIO : Basically what we are trying to do is keep the house or the pool tucked behind the house for obvious reasons of privacy. If we were to try to put the pool behind the house then it would be kind of adjacent to the driveway and then obviously to Koke's Rd. also so this way it just stays private and nestled behind the house if you will and kind of just out of sight. 35 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 As for the shed, the shed is pre-existing. Shelley and Marcel just purchased the home and the greenhouse was already on the property so that was a surprise to us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's hard to find a greenhouse, the shed is easy (inaudible) garage but the shed is not apparently cited it's really the greenhouse that they're talking about. It is the applicant's what we call architectural rear yard but it's pretty close to code but I really had trouble finding it. There's a lot of vegetation behind your shed so crawling around through there in tick country was not such a great idea. I tried walking up Koke Rd. to try to find it cause we only had the survey. Are you planning to use the greenhouse? SHELLEY DZAMA :Yeah we hope to do a lot of plantings but we do actually want to hire maybe a landscape architect to sort of navigate that zone and put more trees and make it may be less full of ticks the same sort of situation you were saying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see if the Board Members have any questions, Eric is there anything from you on this application? MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any idea how long that greenhouse has been there? SHELLEY DZAMA : It looks really old. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The shed too. SHELLEY DZAMA : It looks like it could be a hundred years old. I mean it's hard to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have any legal documents on any of those I presume, no C.O. or PreC.O. or something like that. JENNIFER DIVAGLIO : I could of course go to the Assessor's Office and find out but I didn't pre- meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. 36 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks tome that you picked the most logical place forth is swimming pool. It's open you know, it's got doesn't have a lot of shade over it and all of that so you won't be cutting down a lot of trees.Well when someone's property is burdened with not two but three front yards your options are pretty limited. Is there anyone in the attendees list who wants to talk about this application if so please raise your hands. I see nothing happening here. 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 on that motion? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim please call the roll. 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. BOARS ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously.We will have a decision in two weeks at the next meeting of the Board which will be June 17th. We'll have a draft prepared which we will discuss, the meeting is open to the public, the hearing is closed there's no testimony taken. You're not required to be there but you're welcomed to join in on Zoom if you chose to listen. Otherwise I'll go in the following day and sign the decisions that way it legalizes them and they get sent to the Town Clerk. You get a copy in the mail which you can always just call the office to find out what happened or you're welcomed to listen. 37 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 HEARING#7467 & 74685E—VINCENT BERTAULT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good afternoon.We have two applications for Vincent Bertault#7467 and #7468SE, the first being for variances for the residential property for the house primarily. These were adjourned previously so I don't need to read the Notice in again but let's see what I have to review. So we're looking at the house with a front yard setback of 3 feet, the code requiring a minimum of 35, a pool in a front yard sandwiched between the dwelling and it's got frontage on two street so it's sandwiched between the dwelling and an accessory structure at the opposite end of the property. It needed a Certificate of Appropriateness from HPC which I believe we now have in our records that was obtained. It would appear I just would like you to make sure I'm right and that I'm reading this correctly, it would appear that all they're really requiring in the way of changes in the drawings where primarily elevation AL, the removal of a cupola is that correct? ERIC BRESSLER : The primary change was the removal of a cupola, there was also the lowering slightly of the addition in the back and there was a slight modification to one of the dormers on the side. There were no changes which would impact the applications before this Board, that is to say the Certificate of Appropriateness approves the porch so your understanding is correct madam Chairwoman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The setback remains the same (inaudible) we have on the survey and what we have on the site plan? ERIC BRESSLER : Yes the site plan/survey that you have remains exactly the same because there was no change to the footprint. You were provided in addition for your information the changed side elevations that showed the changes that the HPC and the applicant negotiated on but of course that was for informational purposes only. As you correctly noted there were no changes to the footprint or the front. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what questions the Board has about we'll take them one at a time it makes sense to me to do that. We'll look at the dwelling first and the swimming pool is part of that property and then we'll jump over to the application for the Special Exception for the apartment in the accessory structure. ERIC BRESSLER : Madam Chairwoman will we be handling the variance on the accessory apartment in conjunction with the Special Exception later on? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you have requested a variance for a two story rather than one is that what you're referring to Eric? 38 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 ERIC BRESSLER : That is correct. I wanted to know whether you wanted to discuss the accessory apartment as a whole or whether you wanted me to (inaudible) out the variance portion of it before we move to the Special Exception? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I think we should look at them they're really quite separate applications I mean there are different standards that we have to look at. Typically they are not variances with apartments in accessory structures so you're requesting that is a rather unique approach to looking at the code and what the code allows which is a one story, one floor rather. You can have a two story structure but one for an apartment on one floor with one bedroom, one bathroom, 750 sq. ft. or less than 450 and that's typically what we look at. It needs to be either that structure where the principle dwelling needs to be owner occupied and the accessory structure or the principle dwelling needs to be rented to either a family member or someone who qualifies on the affordable housing registry. So that in a gist is what we're looking at in that application but I think what now we should probably just take a look at the dwelling and it's setback requirement.There's lots of people in the audience and I'm not sure who was interested in discussing this or commenting or whatever but is there anything else that you or Gary would like the Board to know about the residential? ERIC BRESSLER : In terms of yes thank you in terms of the residential we took a ride from the entry to Orient Village if you will that is to say where Village Lane intersects with the Main Rd. and we then proceeded down Village Lane to Navy St. where Mr. Bertault's property is just around the corner and we did that with a view toward determining more specifically what the nature of the neighborhood was in terms of porches and we have emailed over to the Board and we've dropped in the box and we're prepared to show the Board if it wants to take the time today, if it doesn't the Board can review at its leisure the information that we gathered what is basically a trip down Village Lane and onto Navy St. demonstrating the prevalence of porches and in particular wrap around porches and the proximity of those porches to the roadways. I'm sure that the Board is well aware of that condition in Orient. While we prepared this information to flush out the record so there would be the actual pictorial examples of what exists. That being said, I think the conclusion that we draw from that is evident there are a lot of porches in Orient, it was typical of the style at the time these residences were constructed and as the Board noted on the last occasion that many of these in fact all of the structures are very close to the roadway. So granting this relief which would permit the wrap around porch which would be no closer to the road would be entirely consistent with the character of the neighborhood, it wouldn't be detrimental to anyone's property. It's not too close to the side line so that's what I have to say about the porch. I'm not going to revisit our discussions about the porch from the last meeting. I don't think there's any need to do that unless member of the Board have questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see. Nick do you have any questions? 39 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : At this time no. Like you, you noted that there's I think it says there's 32 attendees. I don't know who wants to speak in favor or against this application but I'd rather hear from the public and maybe recap a little bit later on if I have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's sensible. Does the rest of the Board Members feel the same way too, let the public speak and then we'll see where we are? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe we keep it separate just the one application versus the Special Exception. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's what I'm proposing to do. They're rather different characters and different standards so I think we'll just stick with that and certainly we can include the proposed swimming pool and cabana as part of the residential property because those are typically accessories to a principle dwelling so we might as well consider that all as part of that on it is because it's a variance for a front yard location. ERIC BRESSLER : Madam Chairwoman does the Board wish to review on a shared screen basis the photographs or would it prefer to review them at its leisure. Gary O'Connor is prepared to share them with the Board if that's the Board's feeling at this time. If the Board wants to defer that that's fine too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well since it's germane to the application you know to your argument in support of the granting this variance, I think it would be appropriate to show them. There are people in the audience also who might be quite interested and it would save them the time of having to FOIL it or you know go on Laserfiche and all that stuff so yes I think why don't we do this. I think Gary we have to make you a co-host so you can share your screen. BOARD ASSISTANT : I have done that. GARY O'CONNOR : Eric you had taken these photographs, do you want to speak to them or ERIC BRESSLER :Yes,these photographs are in order as we move down Village Lane from its either section with the Main Rd. to the south and if you follow the photographs in order you have a pictorial record of what you see for the most part in terms of porches moving down Village Lane. So you can see that there is a mix of both wrap around porches as well as straight porches and you can see that in many instances they're very close to the roadway and that was what we were able to observe as we rolled down and around the corner on Village Lane before we made it to Navy St. and there's also one in there on Fletcher right around the corner which is also in the vicinity. We obviously did not include a photograph of the applicant's house since the Board is 40 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 well familiar with 'it current state and has renderings of what it will look like when improved. In fact it will look very much like the other wrap around porches. GARY O'CONNOR : This is the new area right here, that's the existing porch. ERIC BRESSLER : So you can see that the add on to the existing porch is-no closer to the road and as you can see from this rendering it operates down then proceeds on the east side of the house in the same manner than other wrap around porches as depicted in the photographs demonstrate. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question, on the pictures you're showing us and what the final elevation the new house is going to be or the renovated house I mean are there any other pictures that you're showing us that have the same height off the ground as what the renovated house would be? ERIC BRESSLER : Well if you look at that those, there are two answers that questions, first the answer is yes if you look at the photographs you will see that many of these houses are elevated off the ground and the underlying answer to that questions of course is something that we explored at the last meeting which was that due to the flood plain requirements that is the height to which we are raising the house and if thank you Gary, you can see there are examples where you have similar elevations not all of them but some of them and I dare say if they were renovations to those houses they would also comply with flood plain elevation requirements. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other questions about this from any Board Members? Okay thanks Gary, let's open this up to the public now and see where that goes. If you would like to speak to this application please raise your hands. Liz do you want to repeat what the procedure is? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS :Good afternoon everyone, if anyone wishes to comment on this application we ask that you send us either an note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen or you can raise your hand and we will allow you to speak. If you are using a phone I don't see a phone number but if you're using a phone press *9 to raise your hand and then we'll let you know how to unmute so you can speak. Thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'd like to remind the attendees that on behalf of application 7467 which is relative to the front yard setback and the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Barbara Cohen I think is BARBARA COHEN : Yes I'm here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Barbara what would you like to say? 41 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 BARBARA COHEN : My name is Barbara Cohen. I've been assisting Ellen McNeilly and her submissions. I believe you have her March 15th submission and letter that is pretty comprehensive and speaks to several issues. One issue that continues to exist here is that on the Laserfiche which the public relies on,the application materials that PDF has no plans whatsoever. So neither for this variance nor for the barn conversion the plans that are up there now are the elevations that HPC has provided the Certificate for but the plans that would I guess ultimately be stamped and approved if approved are just nowhere to be found and I think that was stated in March and to date there's just no indication of any of those plans. You may have them in hard copy but the public has not been able to see them at all. As far as the barn issue application is concerned I believe you had stated in the March in the last meeting that you were not going to consider that until HPC had done a determination and since the HPC's Appropriateness only applies only to their amended plan which does not include the barn I believe the applicant would have to start a new application with HPC and you know run its course there and for the HPC obviously to make a determination and then come back to you. So that's what I think is the way it goes based on the comments from the last hearing. The other issue, according to the looking at the sanitation sanitary plan and maybe you can share the screen for that and that's up on the Laserfiche, the county is still reviewing it and has not provided any approvals yet and I think they're looking back to their letter in 2005 when the property was subdivided and a variance was granted and to their recommendations and determinations at the end of the letter that speaks to the density of development on the site and its environmental impacts. The other thing about not having the plans although we have this plan the sanitary system plan that begins to show the specifics of the retaining walls both sanitary retaining walls and non-sanitary retaining walls which is in full implementation on the site because it's done exactly on the property line, all those monster large, mature beautiful trees have all been taken down to make way for the retaining walls on a plan that hasn't been approved yet and of course cutting roots and so on and creating issues that I'm sure the neighbors will speak to in their concerns. In terms of trees you'll see even on the sanitary plans ERIC BRESSLER : Excuse me, is there a question about the porch in this? BARBARA COHEN :We were asked to speak on behalf of the application that requires the variance for the large the house, the pool and the conversion of the shed to cabana it's the entire plan that's been submitted. So this is not about just answering the porch. ERIC BRESSLER : For clarification the cabana is not part of the variance,that was in the rear yard. It's not part of the variance. BARBARA COHEN : Okay well what I was then going to speak to in terms of the trees was it certainly relates to the pool in terms of probably the need for putting back trees for the negative impacts on the neighbors in terms of buffers and screening and so on and the increased activity 42 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 that would be coming with the pool itself. Certainly the trees matter and the environmental impacts of the proposed plan overall matters. So those are sort of the key concerns at the moment is the Laserfiche folders which have no plans and the status of the barn application because it hasn't been reviewed by HPC and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Barbara we're going to take that separately. Right now we're on the house. We'll get to that and the status of it and HPC and all that as soon as we're done with this one. BARBARA COHEN : So those are really some of the key points here and of course again not to repeat what's been submitted already in the March 15t' letter which is pretty comprehensive. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we have it in our file it's quite thorough. What I would like to ask is, Kim our plans on Laserfiche for what the HPC has approved as well as the elevations? BOARD ASSISTANT : For some reason we didn't get the old plans in so when we were told we made sure that we had the new plans loaded to the Laserfiche. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So are they on there now? BOARD ASSISTANT : The newer plans are on Laser now the ones that were just submitted in March by the applicant is now on Laserfiche. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so it's available. BARBARA COHEN : It's only the elevations though. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No she's just telling you that the plans are now in Laserfiche. On the plans and elevations that were approved by the HPC our staff has scanned them to Laserfiche, the ones that were received from the applicant in March. BARBARA COHEN :Yes I'm aware that the elevations that are shown on the plans are there that's absolutely correct. What isn't shown is the it's not shown in a plot plan and what I'm also saying is that the original application materials which would have included their original plans which would have had a site plan and everything else that follows have never been up there and continue not to be there. BOARD ASSISTANT : Are you saying the site plan is not in there right now? BARBARA COHEN :That's what I'm saying.There are no if you look at the PDF there is not a single plan. BOARD ASSISTANT : Okay I will make sure I'll take a look at that site plan. 43 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd like you to address some of those comments if you'd like to. ERIC BRESSLER : Madam Chairwoman thank you. I listened to all the comments hence I didn't hear any relative to what the Chair asked be addressed except one and I will speak to that. That is screening with respect to the pool. It is my understanding that screening with respect to a pool is something that this Board regularly conditions an approval on but I will also state that regardless of whether or not this Board were to put that into an approval that the applicant would of course provide screening with respect to the pool. The applicant as most applicants do value their privacy very much so screening is a non-issue. As far as the barn is concerned I'm not going to address that at this time because we're going to get to that later. As far as the sanitary plan, I'm not going to address that, that is before the Health Department that's not before this Board. It's not the subject of the variance requests nor are any of the issues that were brought up so in summary we will provide screening and I think that addresses the only comment with respect to the changes to the house which are presently before the Board. Oh I'll get to the barn later but I do want to say and I will say again, at no time did this Board say or are we willing to go to HPC prior to this Board telling us whether or not that's even going to be permissible because if it's not permissible then the exterior of the barn may very well not require any application to HPC whereas if this is approved there may be additional windows or changes to windows so if this Board says it's okay then if we need to go to HPC we'll go to HPC but again that's for the barn. I didn't hear any objection to any of the issues that the Board asked for comment on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please very briefly because there are plenty of other people here that I'd like to hear from. BARBARA COHEN : Yes so just to respond to the issue of HPC is that their decision in 2014 specifically directed the applicant to replace some large holly trees and that has not been done. They were removed and have never been replaced. Second, it speaks to restoring and preserving the structures so I would think that an HPC review of the exterior of the barn is certainly in order and in fact you did say at that Special Meeting in March that you would not review these applications until HPC reviewed it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We actually checked with HPC and there has not been on their agenda a conversation about the accessory structure, not yet. ERIC BRESSLER : That is correct Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We checked with the secretary and confirmed with the Chair and that is simply something that has happened yet. We are aware and I'm only addressing this out of order because you brought it up, we're aware of the prior approval of the barn to preserve and restore it as a barn and also the trees. We have that Certificate of Appropriateness in our record. 44 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 So I want to see if there's anyone else that would like to address the particular issue for the location of the pool in a non-conforming location and for the setback relief for the front porch. BOARD ASSISTANT : I brought in Tim Frost. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please unmute and identify yourself. TIM FROST : Yes my name is Tim Frost, I live in Bay House in Orient which is at 1995 Village Lane. I must say I'm late to the table here but in reviewing the file I follow up on the comment that was previously made that I have a tremendous difficulty following what is in the file and getting a complete picture. I have a specific comment for I believe it would be for Mr. O'Connor, the architect. I note that in the elevations that you flashed very quickly on the screen for the east and the west elevation you indicate new and existing. However for the north and the south elevations you don't do the same and I think it leaves a rather incomplete picture and once again makes it very, very difficult for the public who is interested in this project to understand it and I would suggest that we all need to sort of step back, take a breath recognizing that this is a substantial project that has gone on for a long time, it has involved a lot of changes that seems to be never ending and if the public have a full chance to review this file in its entirety. In addition to that I would note that in viewing this on the HPC site there really is nothing after the 27th of January. So their subsequent approval after a denial is totally missing from the record and I think the public really has not had time to absorb this rather than other than from word of mouth. I'd like to go back to my specific question as to why the elevations don't seem to indicate on the north and the south elevations the new and existing whereas they do on the east and west. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see, Gary can you put those up you can still share your screen right? GARY O'CONNOR : Yes I can still. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we put those up and then perhaps you can address them. GARY O'CONNOR :So what we're talking about here is this line here on the west elevation where we just attempted to show what clearly is the addition on the back side and where the existing house stopped. You can see we even changed the material color just to indicate the existing versus new just to try and make it clear to delineate the existing front part of the house versus the new. On the north elevation again you can see what is the lighter color here and the cedar shingle as the new versus the existing thing in the background. ERIC BRESSLER : Gary I think he's asking about where your cursor was that heavy dotted line at the bottom. TIM FROST : Yes that is correct. 45 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 GARY O'CONNOR : So this delineates the rear ERIC BRESSLER : No, no Gary the dotted line that goes along the bottom that shows the new elevation TIM FROST : Excuse me,just to be clear because I know there are a number of other people that probably want to speak. I'm speaking about the,yes the dotted line which is running from top to bottom, new and existing which appears on the east and west elevations and for some reason appears to be missing on the north and south elevations. GARY O'CONNOR : Well on this longitude and no elevation it was easier to show where the existing on the rear was happening. This is where the end of the existing house is. TIM FROST : I understand that, I'm speaking as to the north and south elevations which you haven't commented on. There doesn't seem to be a line there going up and down so I find that somewhat misleading. GARY O'CONNOR : Right, well that's right it's not as easy to delineate but you can see when looking at these drawings together with the floor plans you can see what is the new porch, the existing house and together with the existing photographs the existing porch stops here. We are adding the wrap around porch sir. TIM FROST : Right and that is not all delineated with the lighter colored shingles which I admit, if you were able to parse through this you would be able to determine but on some of your elevations you clearly delineated and some of them you don't. I find that somewhat misleading. GARY O'CONNOR : Sir we're not trying to be misleading sir. TIM FROST : I'm not saying you're trying to be but it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on, hold on, hold on,this is not as productive as it should be.Just a moment, what we want to do is inform the public right now of what is existing and what is proposed. We can use these drawings, Mr. O'Connor has used a familiar architect (inaudible) to those of us who know how to read them. The public should not necessarily know that so it's certainly understandable why when you're really seriously trying to investigate what this is going to look like and what it's going to mean and how big it's going to get I completely understand why we would want to be able to really fully comprehend in whatever way it works for you. Clearly the delineation with a vertical line made it very clear in one direction but not in all the directions. Perhaps now we can walk through those elevations then Gary you can point out what is existing and what is proposed so that at least whoever is in attendance has a better understanding. Now is that cupola still there or are those the old elevations? 46 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 GARY O'CONNOR :These are the older. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I'm thinking, do you have copies of the new ones so there's no GARY O'CONNOR : Right here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's go to that because quite frankly I don't want to look at what you're not doing now. I want to look at what you are proposing to do cause it changed the elevation. The elevation had a greater height with a cupola, that was removed by HPC. ERIC BRESSLER :That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By agreement so alright. There was a denial, there was an appeal to the Town Board, the Town Board said go back to HPC and work it out. There was an agreement with HPC and a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued based on these plans and these elevations correct? ERIC BRESSLER :That is correct madam Chairwoman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let us do two things, one make sure that they are in our file and that the old plans are removed and the new ones are there so that we know exactly what is before this Board and the public will have the same information. Kim I know you're listening you're paying attention, make sure that starting tomorrow we look at that file carefully, remove anything that in no longer pertinent and make sure we have everything in there that is relevant. Meanwhile we have you here today so there are people in attendance, if you can walk us through the four elevations I think one is very clear you just did that but let's look cause you're not color coding you do have the same line the vertical line so GARY O'CONNOR : I'm going to zoom in on the front elevation, we talked about the porch wrapping to the back.This is in the far back that's a new bedroom on the ground floor and this is a kitchen entrance, kitchen garden entrance back here underneath the porch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How far back from the front yard property line is that? Is that on the survey or site plan? GARY O'CONNOR : This here is probably about 35 feet or so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just to give them a sense of how far back it is. GARY O'CONNOR : And this is further than that. This is the left side elevation the west elevation and this is a kitchen that has been totally rebuilt, redone and this is a summer dining room and there are two rooms on the back that are new. The summer dining room and on the opposite 47 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 side is the one bedroom.This is the rear elevation and north the other side of the summer dining room and the bedroom. This is the kitchen that setback and then this plain here is setback (inaudible) the original house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to pull up the floor plans? GARY O'CONNOR : Sure, I'll just walk through this last and then I'll pull up the floor plan. Again the wrap around porch and this is an element in the kitchen, kitchen sink is behind here and the bedroom and beyond is the summer porch. Let's see floor plans, I'm going to jump back to this set here. So on the ground floor you have the wrap around porch, this is the kitchen garden out over here and the living room, kitchen, small utility laundry, summer dining room and the master bedroom ground floor bedroom.There are two other bedrooms in the house on the second floor and one bath. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's very helpful. BOARD ASSISTANT: Gary tomorrow can you or as soon as possible send me all those plans again. I just want to make sure I have all the current plans. GARY O'CONNOR : I know I've sent them to you electronically, what I'm going to do is I'm going to parse the new elevations into this set here so you have them all together. BOARD ASSISTANT : Yeah and I want also I guess a site plan which GARY O'CONNOR : The site plan is also part of this that's right here. BOARD ASISSTANT : Send me all of this, I just want to make sure I have all current documents to put in the Laserfiche file. TIM FROST : Can I also ask that we do delineate what is new and what is existing properly? GARY O'CONNOR : If you look at this site plan this will also help you when you look at the elevations to see what is new and what is TIM FROST : I would suggest that on the actual elevations you show it also. ERIC BRESSLER : That's already been done. TIM FROST : It isn't in the file right now so I would suggest that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the drawings we just looked at with the information that we just obtained piecing together all of these submissions should give you a very good idea of what they are proposing. I mean you know it's just we can't personalize to every single thing that everybody would like. These are perfectly clear architectural drawings to those of us who have 48 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 to interpret and understand them. I do want the public to understand what's happening, I do respect that. I think it's the very least that the public should expect from applicants and from our Board. So we will make sure that these are in there. If it's an easy thing to do to write new and proposed on there if it's on auto cad and you can just add that Gary by all means do that simply to try and make it as crystal clear as possible exactly what is being renovated, what's being repaired, restored, renovated and what's new construction. GARY O'CONNOR : Yep I can do that. Certainly the south elevation is easier, the north is a little difficult because the existing is very far back cause we look at things in elevation as we know as professionals everything is flat. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Yep. TIM FROST : Thank you. GARY O'CONNOR : You're welcome. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else who would like to speak about this who is in the attendees? I think we can take the screen down now if you would please Gary. Thank you. Barbara Friedman let her in. I don't know whose order was what but let her come in now. BARBARA FRIEDMAN : Hi. The plans and elevations don't seem to match up on the last set of drawings that he showed on that. The east side kitchen elevation seems like the roof comes all the way to the edge of the house and it doesn't show that on the plan unless there's two lines on the elevation (inaudible) but what I really like to know is where the pool fence is and what the grade is. Like how is the site graded? ERIC BRESSLER : Madam Chairwoman would you like to go into the grading of the site while we're talking about the house and the pool or would you prefer to do that separately or not at all since it's really not before the Board? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well neighbors obviously are going to be concerned about runoff, about environmental impacts and so on and so I think it's germane since all of those things have to come to fruition at one point or another. When we have stuff like this before us we often condition it subject to Department of Health approval if we don't already have it if an approval is to be granted. So all of the approvals that are required will have to be obtained one way or the other. I think it's perfectly okay to put up something, do you have the drainage plan, the grading plan cause that's been approved by the Town Engineer. ERIC BRESSLER : That's correct and we have forwarded that to the Board. 49 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we have it. We want the public to know that the drainage has been submitted to the town and that it has been approved Michael Collins. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie if we can if I may and I'm sorry Mr. Bressler thank you for bringing that up. Right now we're talking about the house, can we cause there's a bunch of people that want to talk, can we only speak to the house before we move on to the pool? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And the drainage and I think so that we can just wrap up that component. MEMBER LEHNERT :The drainage is going to sort itself out with the building permit, I mean they have to keep all the water on site. ERIC BRESSLER : That's correct. GARY O'CONNOR : We do have a comprehensive storm drainage plan and it's being executed at this time.That's what everyone sees being dug out, dry wells are being installed and we're doing the right thing in terms of storm water management. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim would you be sure that we have the approved drainage plan also on Laserfiche. We all have hard copies I don't go to Laserfiche to look what's on there, staff generally does a good job with making sure that that information has been scanned in. I want to tell you all that this is a rather new phenomenon,we have only been scanning documents in since COVID since we're on Zoom because prior to that we were in the meeting hall and drawings were there available for the public to look at and if you wanted to see them you'd have to come in in person and FOIL them which you had every right to do. But because of COVID and the building being shut down and all those other restrictions we have started scanning everything before the fact. We typically did not scan in files until a decision was made and then it went over to Laserfiche to Betty Neville's office and you know store and then archive all materials. So we've come a long way in trying to afford the public opportunities in a much easier way actually access to all the material the Board has in the file but we'll scrutinize the file. What I want to do is make sure everything that is no longer relevant or up to date cause the public is right,there have been a number of changes and we've had different sets of drawings not radically different necessarily some things have been consistent but it gets confusing when a variety of things are submitted. So I think all that's germane now is the stuff that has been approved, the stuff that's waiting and pending for approvals and so on and that's what I'd like to make sure that we all have clearly before us and before the public. Let's stick for the moment with the house and the pool and anything germane to that. Let me see if there's any 50 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 BOARD ASSISTANT : We have a Leanna Fernando that I will bring in also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Leanna would you please unmute yourself and tell us your name and your interest in this application. RICHARD GILLOOLY : Can I be heard? You have Richard Gillooly on the phone not Leanne (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Gillooly okay, Mr. Gillooly what would you like us to know? RICHARD GILLOOLY : (inaudible) on the site plan where off-street parking is provided off Navy St. for cars? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on, is this about the accessory structure or is this about the RICHARD GILLOOLY : No I'm talking about the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The house, okay. RICHARD GILLOOLY : I don't see where parking is provided off street for the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright let's bring up the site plan or the survey. Gary can you do that? GARY O'CONNOR : Our off-street parking is here. RICHARD GILLOOLY : In the rear of the property there's no parking on GARY O'CONNOR : There's parking in the garage and there's two spaces here, three off-street parking spaces sir. RICHARD GILLOOLY : So there's no parking from the Navy side in other words. GARY O'CONNOR : There's no off-street parking on Navy St. that is true. There's a house and a garden. RICHARD GILLOOLY : And again the house we're not talking about the barn but is that barn supposed to handle that Willow St. location then will handle the parking for the entire site? GARY O'CONNOR : That is correct sir. There are three required off-street parking spaces, one in the garage and two in the front here. RICHARD GILLOOLY : There's two you're moving it around please would you go back on that. GARY O'CONNOR : Right here sir. RICHARD GILLOOLY : There's two spots provided there right, and where is the third? 51 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 GARY O'CONNOR : In the garage. RICHARD GILLOOLY :There's no way you can get a car in there, it's six feet in the air. GARY O'CONNOR : It's sloped up sir it'll work. RICHARD GILLOOLY : Sir to put a ramp in to have a car enter that building there isn't enough distance between the building and Willow St. to have install a ramp you're losing then the spots that you're provided for. GARY O'CONNOR : Have you ever parked in San Francisco? RICHARD GILLOOLY : That's an impertinent answer sir. You're telling me that the third spot GARY O'CONNOR : You can park on a slope like this sir. RICHARD GILLOOLY : You're telling me that from Willow St. to the barn there will be a ramp built to put that car inside that building? GARY O'CONNOR : That is correct. RICHARD GILLOOLY : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When we get to that building we'll have another look okay because we'll have elevations and so on. RICHARD GILLOOLY : But the Board heard my point that there's no parking provided on Navy St? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. I mean there could be if they didn't have a garden over there. ERIC BRESSLER : That is correct madam Chairwoman there could be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Those are choices people make but the code requires three on-site parking spaces, two for the principle dwelling and one for an accessory apartment. Now it is awkward at best I will say to have three parking spaces in order for the third space in the garage to have no cars parked behind it outside because in order to get the car in and out of that garage you cannot have those two cars parked there. It's just awkward. RICHARD GILLOOLY : Listen we've lived with the unfinished building there as a neighbor for years and I think that we're entitled to clear solutions to these issues rather than some snappy answer about San Francisco. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well I think your point about parking is well taken. The Board's heard it and I'm sure that Mr. Bressler and Mr. O'Connor have heard it, they'll consider it you 52 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 know it's a process and I appreciate your comments and we're going to (inaudible) these things out. BOARD ASSISTANT : Leslie I have someone on the phone who wants to comment. I have a phone CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can let them in and let them identify themselves. DREANNE BENNER : My name is Dreanne Benner and I am resident of the Orient Historic District and I have a comment on (inaudible) and with all due respect what you're doing here today much of the commentary would have taken place I would think at a public hearing that HPC would have hosted in April when they issued the Certificate of Appropriateness. My question is, how does ZBA I understand technically how ZBA moves forward because there is a document called a Certificate of Appropriateness that was issued in April but there was no public hearing that took place in April where much of this commentary could have taken place and there are no records for anyone to understand the basis for the determination. So my question is really I'd like to just have it on record that there is insufficient information for the public to really understand how this works and we do trust the process and we do trust that HPC has a process that is open and transparent that the community can weigh in in a public meeting and I don't understand it seems the process is reversed in this case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you want Mr. Bressler do you want to address,the process with HPC? ERIC BRESSLER :Yes, I'm happyto madam Chairwoman. I thinkthatthe Chair accurately described the process earlier this afternoon but I am happy to reiterate what happened.There were several public hearing before the HPC in conjunction with the application. The public appeared, the public commented, the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness was denied an appeal was taken and the appeal was settled. With respect to the issues now before the Board, there were absolutely no changes that were affected by the resolution of the HPC denial. It did not affect the swimming pool, it did not affect the accessory apartment and the porch was unchanged. The public had two public hearings as well as work sessions to comment on this and they did and due process and then some has been afforded in our view.The matter was settled,the Town Attorney was involved and that's what happened and I think madam Chairwoman you correctly described it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else who wants to make some comments? BOARD ASSISTANT : I have a Liz Welch. S3 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 LIZ WELCH : Hi. My name is Liz Welch (inaudible). I do want to talk about my house which is at 230 Vincent St. which is being used as some sort of proof of I think wrap around porches and setbacks and I'm curious as to how my house is being used in this way number one and number two the reason why I'm interested is because when I added the wrap around porch to my house I think it was 2005 1 went through this very process and I had to re-draw my plans because the porch was too deep and they wanted me to make it more shallow which I did. So my question is, how is 230 Vincent St. some you have it in that photomontage as Fletcher St. but it's actually 230 Vincent St. why is that house being used to support that especially since our setback is so much deeper I just don't understand the comparison. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to answer that Mr. Bressler. ERIC BRESSLER : I have addressed that question earlier. It is illustrative of the fact that wrap around porches are a common feature in Orient hamlet and this is a house in relatively close proximity to ours and that is true with respect to all of the examples that we raised. We surely could have come up with more had we taken a longer time and driven around the entire hamlet but I think these are illustrative of the fact. I would also add to the Board that no one is seeking by this application to expand the dimensions in terms of width of the existing porch. I think the plans show that so that's the answer to that inquiry madam Chairwoman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually let me clarify it a little further, we have six state statutes town laws that the ZBA has to apply in order to exercise what's called the balancing test which is, when determining when variances are justified you have to come to the conclusion that the benefit to the applicant outweighs detriment to the community and you balance those different laws. The first one is, is it in context with the character of the neighborhood. So character of the neighborhood is either proven by an applicant in making their argument by submitting prior variances that show that setbacks are not conforming pretty much or that lot coverage is excessive beyond what the code permits. Those become prior ZBA decisions that define the character of the neighborhood. Another way which the Board always does for every application prior to a public hearing is we inspect the property and we drive around the neighborhood. We look at the neighborhood, we look at what else is there you know and in this case we see that there were porches. They did it for us as part of their application but be assured that everyone of us has been out to that property a number of times and is very familiar with that neighborhood. Both as people who live here you know, I used to live on Youngs Rd.for crying out loud for many, many years and I'm very familiar with the neighborhood. So that's really what I believe the applicant was trying to do was to say this is typical these wrap around porches like what we're proposing are typical of the neighborhood and many of them are close to the property line or close to the street or close to the sidewalk and not set back 35 feet which might be,a typical front yard setback on a residential property. There are other who I think want to speak. 54 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I would like to add just one comment to what you just shared if I may. (inaudible) I would argue is not necessarily about the design but we're talking about a 3 foot front yard setback where 35 feet is required. There's an existing structure that I think the objective here is that the owner and the community wants to see a historical property saved. I don't know how deep we can get into the design, I mean obviously they're all interrelated but it's about a 3 foot front yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well HPC is the body that has the jurisdiction over the design in 'a historic district. This Board even though believe me we look at things sometimes that you know just hurts my feelings but the bottom line is it's none of my business what somebody wants to call beautiful that's their business.This Board is here to say you can legally do it if it's 35 feet from the road or 28 feet from the road or whatever it is okay. We would not make a decision without HPC's ruling for just that reason because they have priority in a historic district as to how something should look and we have no way of knowing whether or not you were going to say step it back further from where it is, we didn't know and now we do. There was a denial, there was an appeal,there was a resubmission,there was a negotiation, there is now an approval and we are looking at what has been approved. Now this Board feels that we can with some informed insight make a decision from a variance point of view and what we're looking at is a swimming pool in a front yard even though it's very clear if you know the property that it's sandwiched between two front street frontages. So it will be in the architectural rear yard of both, an accessory building and a dwelling so that's the pool business. Then the other thing we're looking at the fact that the one corner of the front porch is 3 feet from the property line well it's 2.8 or something.That's what this Board is reviewing but that doesn't�mean that any of your comments are irrelevant, they're all totally relevant. This is why we have public hearings and we consider every single comment that is made and it will be in our transcription of today's hearing which is being recorded so we can provide a written transcription also available to the public once we get it together. BOARD ASSISTANT : I have an Ellen McNeily who would like to speak. ELLEN MCNEILY : We're dealing mainly with the house at this point is that correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct. ELLEN MCN'EILY : Okay then I have not much to say about that that has not already been said. My concern is mainly something that is probably coming up at a later point which is relative to the barn. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay then why don't you hold on, stay on we'll leave you there and we'll see if there's anybody else in the attendees who wants to address 55 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Excuse me Leslie, a Jeri Woodhouse has called the office, she doesn't have her hand up but she would like to speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Put her on speaker phone. BOARD ASSISTANT : She didn't raise her hand but she is in the attendees so I'm going to move her in. JERI WOODHOUSE : I have one quick question, since this property is (inaudible) referenced as having two front yards, would it be possible to post notices on both sides of the houses so that if you are on the Willow St. side you know that there's a hearing coming up as well as on the Navy St. side? Mostly I'm worried about it's not specifically about the buildings or whatever, it really has to do with the very large moat that's the only way I can describe it that's going up around the property that I have been told is concrete and its 4 feet higher off the ground. A number of things come to mind, it's very hard to figure out what the impact of that will be on both the property and on the barn in the back particularly when you're talking about parking where you want to have something go up to get a car on the third floor I mean the third car up there. I don't know what kind of work has been done by hydrologists or anyone else to look at the impact of that amount of concrete and the water. I had lives as you know I'm next door to this property for a number of years before I moved to the main part of the town and I'm very familiar with the (inaudible) of water and what has happened in that my house which was next door I actually owned the house at one point that Vincent Bertault owns so I'm very familiar with that and I don't know if there's been any scientific looking at it but that is a very unusual part of the whole area the whole community in terms of what the demands are on the water and where it goes and how it floods, it doesn't flood every house. The pattern of where the water is going to one of my neighbors referenced the fact that they thought it was being directed so all the water that was excess on this property would be going down Willow Terrace out that way. ;I think it's a lot of misinformation or no information about water and I think that is key to what is developed or not developed on this parcel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Jeri, Gary do you want to address any of those concerns about what's happening with all that concrete revetment? GARY O'CONNOR : I can tell you yes, sure we have an engineer who has performed a storm water management plan for us. I ,think one of the Board Members mentioned earlier that all the water that rests on the property should be managed on that property which is true which is good practice. The site slopes from the east to the west and one of the walls along the curb all along the easterly line is going to manage keep water from flowing across lines into our property. This property Jeri as you know pools up on any decent kind of storm. One of the things we're doing as part of storm water management is we've got a series of dry wells in different locations, we're 56 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 taking all the storm water from the roof tops into the dry wells so we're recharging the ground so we're being good stewards of the hydrology letting the water back into the ground. The walls are going to be they're going to have stone clad, when you see concrete that's the inside there will be a stone cladding on the exterior and the final product is going to be very nice. JERI WOODHOUSE : It's true that it's 4 feet off the grade? GARY O'CONNOR : On the inside there's going to be the grade is going to be raised around the building some,there's a grading plan that's been approved again by the Town Engineer so we're all we're doing it in compliance with that drawing. JERI WOODHOUSE : Is it available to the public? GARY O'CONNOR : I believe it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Jeri I'm going to check Kim is going to check tomorrow and make sure thatthe approved drainage plan is in ourfile. If anyone doesn't know howto access the Laserfiche file on this application if you call our office they will help you. JERI WOODHOUSE : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Anyone else I see some hands up. BOARD ASSISTANT : I have a William Kanz here. WILLIAM KANZ :Just in terms the point that Dick Gillooly brought up, the car that would park at that steep angle (inaudible) San Francisco (inaudible) into the garage I don't even think the shortest CJ Jeep can do that without bottoming out cause in San Francisco the streets are steep but they don't suddenly come level you would bottom out for sure. I don't know what kind of a vehicle could do that. Unless you continue the ramp at the same angle into the building so the car in the building also is parked on an angle. The other question I had is the property is being raised up enough (inaudible) a house that remains the old house the original house on Navy St. is that also going to be raised? I may have just missed that. GARY O'CONNOR : Yes we are raising the building in conformance with the FEMA flood elevation requirement. WILLIAM KANZ : What about the parking in the what kind of a vehicle could go up at very, very cause I live very I walk there every day to go up that very, very steep ramp and then suddenly level off(inaudible)? I'd like to know what the vehicle is. GARY O'CONNOR : Jeep? 57 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 WILLIAM KANZ : No a jeep couldn't do that. Seriously maybe one of those monster trucks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think these comments about the parking are quite relevant.We have to stamp an approved site plan and we do have to make sure there are three viable on-site parking spaces. It's something that I think maybe Gary and Eric and your clients might want to consider, might want to think about further. We haven't really looked at the accessory building yet anyway so let's wait until we do that and then we can talk about that some more but I appreciate your comments. Is there anybody else I see more raised hands. BOARD ASSISTANT : I have two more people, I think Barbara Friedman had spoken CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well let Lawrence Bernstein first cause that person hasn't spoken yet. LAWRENCE BERNSTEIN : Hi everyone, I am the applicant's neighbor and I wanted to know concerning Jeri Woodhouse's point about water and I am talking to the applicant about this. He is my neighbor and we have a relationship so I just want to understand we don't know if there's a problem with this or not at this point but if there is pooling of water that goes from east to west in the corner where the wall will be built is there a solution to that potential problem and again I reference this by saying I don't know if this is a problem but if there would be a problem and there would be pooling is there something that can be done about that? GARY O'CONNOR : I'll respond to that question. Yeah the storm water management plan is attempting to take all that surface water that comes off of hard surfaces like the buildings and put it directly into the ground and that storm water pooling is not over by your house Lawrence it's actually in that space between the existing building and the pool where we have what we're calling rain garden on our site plan. LAWRENCE BERSTEIN : Gary my point is that given that there's,a wall now that goes 4 feet down, will that block the flow of water and will that create problems? GARY O'CONNOR : We're trying to manage the water that is on our property and not take on others as well.So it's common to put a curb wall into to stop that. I don't think we have a problem on your side, I think it's more in the middle of the site behind the existing house and then Jeri has experienced this over the years I'm sure cause I've seen photographs after storms where the water was just pooled up in a large area. It might take a day or two to dissipate to be absorbed. By putting chambers to hold that water until it can slowly feed back into the aquifer that's what we're doing. That's why you see hole being dug in the ground here and over towards Willow St. and other places on the site for those drywells. LAWRENCE BERSTEIN : I understand what you're saying in terms of the applicant's property. I'm thinking about the flow of water on our property because there's a retaining wall. 58 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 GARY O'CONNOR : We're not contributing any water to your property that doesn't already fall onto it that's all I can tell you. LAWRENCE BERNSTEIN : The wall does not create a blockage? GARY O'CONNOR : If anything it's running from east to west so if you have a water problem on yours and it was running into this property you still have that water the same water but I don't think there hasn't been a problem on that end of the property to my knowledge. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see Barbara Friedman had a comment again and then maybe we should move on to the accessory building the other application unless, I want to see if the Board has any questions based upon what we've just heard from the public then we'll go on. BARBARA FRIEDMAN : I'm curious about a couple of things. One is, will the approved HPC drawings of the barn showing it raised as high off the ground as it is currently and how high is it off the existing,natural grade? Also, the setback of the house is it 3 feet from the street or the property line or is that the same thing?What is the setback of the retaining wall on the east side of the house?Also I want to say that the photographs were sort of misrepresented this particular case because all of us have this (inaudible) quite a bit further back from the street except for maybe one house that you showed, they're further back from the street than this particular house; wrap around porch or not it's I mean there's greater setbacks. This is an unusually small setback. ERIC BRESSLER : Madam Chairwoman we are available to take questions from the Board regarding the house since I think we've heard from the public regarding the house aspect of this application. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me summarize a little bit. I mean we've heard concerns about parking right, we've heard concerns about on-site drainage, we don't seem to have too many concerns about the location of the proposed pool other than the fact that there's request for visual screening from adjacent properties. We know wrap around porches are characteristic of the neighborhood but we also realize that the setback is unusually close here for even really old houses. I mean typically they're setback a little farther than what this one is.This one already got it's footprint there. We have discussed in the past the possibility of since it's got to be raised on a new foundation anyway of sliding it back slightly. The applicants have submitted information about the financial hardship and possible architectural damage to the house by doing that, we can obtain counter arguments to that. We've seen many historic properties around here moved. The Peconic Land Trust just did one over on Horton Lane that old house was picked up and moved a long way away from its original location. I'm just kind of reviewing for the public the kinds of things we've already talked about. Let me ask at this point, Eric do you have any questions or comments you'd like to make with regard to the setback or the pool location or the drainage? 59 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 MEMBER DANTES : No not right now no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick did you hear anything from the public you want to comment on? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, I think we've during our public hearings have you know a lot of this information has been repeated.There are some questions I'd like to talk about when we get more to the accessory building structure but so I'll leave it at that, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you at this time? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, I think we had a lot of good information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, is there anything that Eric or Gary that you would like to kind of summarize this part? ERIC BRESSLER : Yes thank you, I think that the application with respect to the pool is relatively straightforward. It's a through lot with two frontages. The Board has been faced with this many times. We are willing and in fact we insist upon putting screening in for our own privacy and I think that's all I want to say about the pool. As far as the porch application goes, yes it would not change the character of the neighborhood. Yes there would be no detriment to anyone. This house is closer to the street than many others. Gary has indicated on his drawing that the average setback from the property line as opposed to the street is under 10 feet for Navy St. so we're dealing with small areas. The porch if this Board were to approve it would be no closer and the bulk of it would be much further away increasingly from the street. We don't believe that there's any reason why that relief would not be granted. Madam Chairwoman you correctly noted that tastes differ, I think it's fair to say that it's a sound plan it's a good plan, it's an attractive plan and a wraparound porch would enhance the property. Now in terms of the other issues that are being raised, I don't intend unless the Board feels otherwise to address the drainage issue any further than Gary already has. We have an approved town approved drainage plan, it's in the file to the extent that it hasn't been uploaded I'm sure it will be and I think that deals with the drainage plan. In terms of the parking, we have our spaces and they are what they are. I think any Board approval on the barn would require three spaces and the Building Department would have to certify them. So I think we're a little premature on that particular aspect. The rest of the issues I don't think are germane to the house to the barn or anything else to the extent we need Health Department approval we will get it. To the extent we need to follow the drainage plan we will follow it and we will continue to work with the applicant's neighbor who had commented on making sure that the improvements do not create any problems for the neighborhood. Let me 60 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 just sum up with respect to the house, I think it is beyond argument and I know the Board knows this because they've been there, it is beyond argument that this house needs to be renovated. It would be an asset not only to the applicant but to the neighborhood. Joe Fischetti has told us that due to the architecture of this house and the construction movement is not an option here. So under those circumstances and hearing no objection with respect to the porch or the pool other than screening we ask the Board to favorably consider that and we're willing to go on and address the Special Exception and the variance application with respect to the barn. Thank you madam Chairwoman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that makes sense. What about consideration of locating the two required parking spaces for the principle dwelling off of Navy St. instead of trying to put all of them off of Willow? ERIC BRESSLER : Well one of the things that I was looking at in terms of parking while we were discussing that is it's one of the things I'm going to discuss with the applicant although it is not going to change the number of spaces-we have is reorienting the proposed garden while I like the plan a lot we're not necessarily married to it and we might be able to fit a space in there which would alleviate some of the problems. Let me just say about parking, San Francisco has been brought up, I have a lot of experience in driving in San Francisco unfortunately with a stick shift. In San Francisco the hills are very steep and they are punctuated like cross streets where the angle of the road suddenly levels off and then suddenly goes up.The steepness of those roads is much greater than what's proposed here.To answer your question directly we would be willing to consider trying to reorient the garden, putting in some parking screening I think there would conceivably be room for a space there, I'm not going to commit to it since I haven't spoken to my client but I think it is something to address the concerns of the Board that actually we haven't been there yet but anticipating going there I think that that's something that we could consider. Gary do you want to speak to that? GARY O'CONNOR : I just brought up an elevation study or a section study,through that driveway in the front can I share that with you just to give you an idea what that steepness looks like? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay what we're going to do then is go on to the accessory building now right? GARY O'CONNOR : Yes that will be germane to the parking for the accessory building as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we'll start on that now. GARY O'CONNOR : I just wanted to share the screen, so this is the pitch that we're looking at here.The building ended up at 25 feet from the road.This is the kind of pitch we're looking at for this which doesn't seem outlandish. I mean San Francisco is I parked on the side of streets I used 61 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 to work for a company based in San Francisco I used to go there on a regular basis that's why it immediately popped into my head. People used to park perpendicular and you open your car door and it would fly open and dent the guy next to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No understood and I get the analysis but there is a point to be made about the fact that this is not typical parking in Orient. This is not characteristic of that neighborhood. To be parked on a self-created elevation like that a slope, granted over a 25 foot span it's not a bad pitch it's not a severe pitch let's say but it's not typical either and I can well appreciate why neighbors would say I'm driving down this old little quaint street and suddenly there's this big ramp with two cars parked on it. It's changing what they're used to seeing. Elevating the accessory structure has changed dramatically what they're used to seeing. I do want also say we did get in the chat room, thank you Gary I think you can take that down now. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry before we remove it I'm just confused what we're looking at and while the applicant was showing the top elevation that's labeled building at 25 feet back from the road. The second image is labeled at 20 feet back from the road with a separate pitch. I'm confused what is the distance because GARY O'CONNOR : Please ignore 20 feet, 25 feet is the distance. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the site plan I don't remember showing the building setbacks, so it is in fact 25 feet? GARY O'CONNOR : It is in fact 25, this was a study we did back when we brought the application to move the barn. So I just had this dug up and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please make sure that we don't have any contradictory or extra information only what you're proposing. GARY O'CONNOR : Sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I've never seen this. I don't even know that we have it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No we never saw this. GARY O'CONNOR : No this was a step that we did internally. I'm just sharing this so you can see what this looks like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understand okay. ELLEN MCNEILY : Is that where the tree was/is? It was,(inaudible) by the HPC. GARY O'CONNOR : It was off to the right side of the slope. 62 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you take that one down for a minute now Gary,thank you. I want to look at this chat, there's something in here that I want to point out. The elevated ramp was never proposed to the HPC, only the 2014 approved (inaudible) ever came before the HPC. I don't know that's in,the chat I don't know if Anne is still on or not. I'm just going to ask no requirement but Anne if you want to say anything about this at this point it's appropriate. There's no need to do it if you don't want to but since you're here you might be able to give us some background on the HPC review of the original barn that was to be restored and preserved. We do have that in our file I think I mentioned that before but okay cause that was in the chat. Alright Ellen you've been waiting to talk about this accessory structure, why don't we have you do that. ELLEN MCNEILY : I was concerned about the square footage area of allowable apartments in accessory structures and it seemed that from the plans that I'd seen they exceeded that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well here's the thing,we have to go by the calculations of the Building Department to verify what the applicant says is the livable floor area which may not be greater than 750 sq. ft. ELLEN MCNEILY : I thought it was 837 that was why I raised the question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well here's the thing,they haven't verified it because it's on two floors and they won't because the code says it has to be on one floor. The applicant has said they want a variance for having an apartment on two floors when the code says one floor. So this would be a good opportunity to talk to the Board Mr. Bressler about why you believe your argument for a variance in this regard is. In the history of this code I think it was in 2010 I'm not sure but in any case the Board has no history at all of ever granting a two story two floor apartment. The code says clearly one story. We do have some experience with granting small variances for slightly excessive livable floor area. Most of those were because they were as built and they were coming in to be legalized and rather than having somebody rip out you know 20 sq. ft. we granted a variance within the Special Exception permit. So we have a precedent for that, we don't have for an apartment on two floors. So what argument would you make as to why this variance is justified. ERIC BRESSLER : There are several basis for the argument and we start with the code itself. Now I think we can all acknowledge that our town code is not always a model of clarity. In this particular case you have a provision of the code that says that accessory apartments have to be on one floor.There is no language in the code that addresses the purpose or the rational for that particular requirement and there is no legislative history that leads us to an understanding of why that was enacted. In connection with this application we have wrapped our brains collectively for any rational as to why that should be the case and as a corollary why the Zoning Board should not grant relief if the statutory factor is for relief are present. In fact the whole 63 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 business arising out of accessory apartments was because of the shortage of housing and the need to take care of family members things of that nature and it seems to me that purpose is not served one way or another by having one floor or two floors. Now that having been said let's turn to the circumstances which in my mind compel the granting of relief and those are these. First, there's no detriment to any neighboring property as a result of granting this.The two story nature of this particular apartment is neutral with respect to people who may be neighbors in the neighborhood. As far as consistency with the neighborhood it is the presence of the accessory apartment which is important not whether it's on one floor or two floors.The need for two floors I think we explored last time we were before you and that is that there's a garage on the first floor and a small workshop area the plans reflect that. There's not enough room on either floor for an apartment of reasonable size. The argument can.be advanced that you have to give up your garage. I don't think that that is a reasonable result. I think that the accessory apartment here which is designed for a family member (inaudible) within the reason for the accessory apartments is served by having this type of apartment. In short, there's no reason why in the code that this should be so and there's no reason why on these facts that relief should not be given. I listened even though madam Chairwoman you tried to bifurcate this and rightly so that didn't work out so well with the public comments and I understand why but I listened to all the public comments and I heard lots of comments about other things but I didn't hear any about this issue. In fact it's neutral to everybody else it's going to transparent to them. So I don't see any reason why on this particular set of facts that relief should not be granted here. Now if relief is granted that takes us to the secondary part of the application which being a Special Exception is this. If we meet the requirements then we're entitled to a Special Exception as a matter of law and I think that if we meet the variance standard and the Board were then to say you get that variance and you get a Special Exception we then have to meet all of those requirements and in fact the grant would be conditioned upon meeting them.At that point if the Board were to grant that type of relief then the applicant would have to consider whether or not the exterior configuration of the building was goingto require another visit to HPC.Without knowing I suspect that that may be so due to the issue of upgrading of windows and things like that but that's not necessarily so. In discussing it with the Building Department we were told that if things remain the way they were there would be no need to go back to HPC. So that's the basis for the application for the variance and the basis for the request for the Special Exception. I would add one other point madam Chairwoman and that is we cannot ignore the current real estate market. While this is addressed to the entire Board my comments are addressed in particular to one member of this Board and Member Planamento you know who that is. We're talking about the availability of affordable housing. There will come a time after Mr. Bertault moves out after he builds whatever he's permitted to build and after his mother-in-law leaves that there will be an affordable housing unit there and I cannot understate the importance of that particular aspect. 64 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I will say one thing, they are not transferable to other owners automatically. First of all the reason being that even though the use was permitted say for the Bertault's the bottom line is the individual the new owner is going to have to prove principle occupancy right ERIC BRESSLER : That was not my point madam Cha,irwoman you're absolutely correct. My point was that at such time God forbid that the mother-in-law is no longer capable for whatever reason of living there and the Bertault's,still own it that will become an affordable housing unit that is it will switch from for a family CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will and why you're saying there's not enough room on either floor? Okay you want your garage and you want your apartment and you want your workshop. Why can't you enlarge the second story, you're doing all kinds of things to that building and indeed you will have to go back to HPC if in fact the elevations you submitted to us are what winds up happening because you have not preserved and restored -the barn. If you had not changed anything on the elevations at all and just the use then perhaps you wouldn't have to go back to HPC because they said the barn is preserved and restored.The use is no longer a storage building but the building is intact. ERIC BRESSLER : The building is intact and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you start changing all kinds of windows and doors which is exactly what you're proposing to do because habitable space requires ventilation and light and air and storage doesn't. ERIC BRESSLER : My understanding madam Chairwoman is that there would not be substantial changes necessary to the doors and windows and addressing your prior point which is why don't we go back and just expand it further, the Board will note from the plans that were submitted that there is only 5 feet of headroom on the second story in the area that is not proposed for the apartment. In order to create habitable space there is going to have to be a huge alteration of that particular area, a raising of the roof and all kinds of things that are going to do violence to the appearance and the historical nature of the structure and we don't want to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on, hold on someone is trying to speak. ERIC BRESSLER : That's Mr. Bertault. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to say something Mr. Bertault? VINCENT BERTAULT : Yes, good afternoon Ms. Chairman. I was actually trying to get on speakers to answer a few of the comments and questions that have been raised during this hearing. If you allow me to go back a little bit regarding the house and the dwelling, in the particular questions 6S Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 about the parking,there is a parking spot which is not necessarily indicated on these plans which will be in fact on the west side of the house on Navy St.that's kind of a little driveway there where a car could be parked in order to increase the capacity or parking spots if need be. As far as Navy St.there are as it is now six or seven spots available in front of the house if it's necessary to have more parking space for people coming over or the need to add some parking to the people staying in the house. As far as inland parking we have then with the three and the back and the one in the front or two that would be five to answer Mr. Gillooly's request about the parking spot. Now regarding the HPC and the work which we're planning on doing regarding the (inaudible) we submitted all these documents and plans to match exactly what we were approved with HPC when we submitted our documents about six years ago. All of the layout has been drawn inside with the existing door, gate and windows in order to make it work. So I just wanted to clarify this point as everybody has been confused with the document we presented early July last year which seems to be still on the (inaudible) side which are not accurate and I'm sorry about that but that's what it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know now I'm curious because the drawings that I've got for the proposed accessory apartment the elevations look very different than the existing barn. VINCENT BERTAULT : Gary would you answer on this please. GARY O'CONNOR :The existing barn drawings have not changed.The windows are all in the same placement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't see any garage doors. There's no barn doors on there. GARY O'CONNOR : The barn doors are not shown it's just the openings are there.- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well once again it's been a longtime and a lot of documentation and I want to make sure that we're looking at is exactly what the barn looks like now and exactly what you're proposing the elevations to look like with the proposed interior layout. VINCENT BERTAULT:You have been receiving these documents,that was part of our application. GARY O'CONNOR : (inaudible) front elevation is a big sliding door is not shown but all the windows CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you leaving it? GARY O'CONNOR : on the floor plan and elevations are the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you leaving it or removing it? GARY O'CONNOR : Right now the plan is to leave it. 66 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's going to be the entrance to the garage? VINCENT BERTAULT :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have the correct drawing. It's very frustrating because you know I feel like VINCENT BERTAULT : Gary would you mind to just put this document. GARY O'CONNOR : May I share the screen? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Please. GARY O'CONNOR : All the existing window openings MEMBER PLANAMENTO: Mr. O'Connor could you walk us through what we're looking at the four panels here of elevations? GARY O'CONNOR :This is the Willow St. side openings is the main door,this is the south elevation existing door MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Facing the pool. GARY O'CONNOR : Facing the pool. Two doors this plane here is further back and then of course the west elevation and the east elevation. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are there two garage openings? GARY O'CONNOR :This is the opening at the workshop. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are those the existing doors? VINCENT BERTAULT :Yes. GARY O'CONNOR : It's a rolling door, it's on a metal CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I know what it is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So only one door can be opened at a time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Bertault is there anything else you want to say? VINCENT BERTAULT : No thank you very much for letting me talk. 67 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see who else is here in the audience. We have several hands up, Gideon Darangelo can you bring him in Liz. GIDEON DARANGELO : Yes thank you. I own a home on 230 Vincent St. at the corner and so we live at the back end of this development which I'd like to start by saying it's been really an unpleasant experience over the past several years of this how this development has dragged on. It has degraded our sense of community and neighborhood on our closely knit block and it's really I've seen one home owner on the adjacent property chose to sell his home and leave because of how we all felt and now I see a second homeowner in a comparable situation. So I'm thankful that we can have this conversation today to understand what's permissible because every time I walk by there, which I do every day walk with my dog I see something else that just makes my draw drop. I hope if(inaudible) it may perhaps be legal but it's definitely not community oriented I have no doubt of that. I guess my question relates to the parking spots, I had my hand up since the parking spot discussion earlier. The incline of those parking spots and just generally how unusual that is for how we're used to the neighborhood being, we have young children who are biking around that corner and frankly having when I look at that 25 foot offset and the incline it makes me concerned that the comings and goings of cars it's not just like pulling into your driveway but you're pulling up an incline could create a safety issue for the young children that are used to living, biking on a very quiet and typical family street. So I just wanted to raise that as an issue and I guess I have one question. Related to that 25 foot the architect showed earlier, where does the property line begin? Does is begin at the blacktop at the street cause it's hard for me to imagine that that's 25 feet unless it goes right up to the blacktop of the street or is that incline going to be greater than what you're showing there? GARY O'CONNOR : I believe Vincent might be able to answer that better because he's (inaudible) on the ground but I believe the blacktop goes further than it's certainly further than the property line. There's grass in between. VINCENT BERTAULT :That's correct,there's another 8 feet. GIDEON DARANGELO :Well the concern is still maintains that having the cars parked on an incline does change the complexion of the neighborhood and perhaps introduces a new traffic dynamic on that street for the kids biking there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it possible to reconfigure how those parking spaces are laid out and to angle them differently in that area? That seems like a very generous space to get two cars in back there or a car and why not just make it flat? Why not just you don't need to elevate the grade. I mean you're doing it to get a car into a garage so there are two ways to do it. You either increase the elevation, go up and in and based upon what you have to do with the foundation there in elevating it that's probably the better way to do it. The other way of course is to go up 68 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 and down into a garage but the bottom line is,you don't if it's one car you're looking at you don't need to have it that width. Possibly you can find spaces that are level at street level you know in order to put in parking. ERIC BRESSLER : Madam Chairwoman based upon what Mr. Bertault said before, one of the possibilities is to have a flat space there and have a ramp up into the garage for use of the car into the garage and with the other spaces in front we meet the requirements. That's one possibility that we'll be looking at, is that a possibility Gary? GARY O'CONNOR : Anything is a possibility, yes. I mean we can look at it and I mean it might be possible to introduce steps inside the barn, lower the potential barn floor a little bit to ease the even if it was just one foot, ease the incline. From a safety standpoint, I live in a small town I have a backup situation inside my house and I know I have to be extra careful every time I back up cause I have to cross a sidewalk which is semi busy in town and any person operating a motor vehicle knows when they back up they have to have their eyes peeled for children on bikes and so on.That's the responsibility of driving and it's the same whether you're coming down a ramp, if anything on a ramp you might be able to see further out (inaudible) on a flat driveway. VINCENT BERTAULT : I just want to add something regarding this parking spot, Mrs. Chairwoman. The corner between the back of 95 Navy St. and Vincent St. is there's a triangular shape there which is part of the turn in fact is used for parking as well before we even reach the asphalt so there should be (inaudible)amount of space to have two cars there parked before you even reach asphalt and I think that was one of the reasons we had slightly some problem with the previous owner of this house on Vincent St. which didn't accept the fact that I would like to have access to my property from the street. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board have any questions at this point? ELLEN MCNEILY : The HPC originally when they approved this insisted that the two Holly trees and the Willow tree be maintained okay. The Willow tree had been erroneously declared dead by Mr. Bertault which it clearly is not if you can see all the growth that's coming up on it now but what it does do however is interrupt whatever ramping they've been talking about to get into the garage as at that point on Vincent St. so the tree would also have to be removed in order for that to happen which is in contravention of the original requirement by the HPC. So whatever happens, happens but just bear in mind that there have been many areas of where things have been pushed off into areas that VINCENT BERTAULT : I don't think this is a relevant matter to be discussed today. ELLEN MCNEILY : (inaudible) violated HPC 69 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 VINCENT BERTAULT : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on wait, wait, wait VINCENT BERTAULT : There is a tree in here which has been damaged by storms and it will be replaced when this whole project is finished and over as it is indicated on the drawing. ERIC BRESSLER : Madam Chairwoman our plans call at the conclusion of this project as Mr. Bertault just said for additional planting to be made. It doesn't serve the purposes of why we are here today to talk about what has to be done at the end of the day. ELLEN MCNEILY : No but the violations that occurred as a result of those changes were VINCENT BERTAULT :There's no violations in here I think that's enough. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Bertault hold on, look we have ample information in our files that have been submitted in detail about the history of the landscaping on that property. There are ways that things will have to be readdressed. The applicant has indicated that they have no adverse concern about doing so and what is really before us is not the HPC particularly but the floor plans I'm looking at for an apartment which appears to qualify in terms of a family member living there. You have also indicated you want to move in there while your house is being renovated, we have no precedent for that I want to tell you. We have no precedent for that, we have approved accessory apartments when someone is living in the principle dwelling. So that is a timing issue that needs to be considered. We don't approve an accessory apartment without someone occupying a principal dwelling and without the occupant of the accessory apartment being the family member that you indicated would be living there. I just want to make sure everybody understands the range of things the Board is going to have to look at. VINCENT BERTAULT : That's correct madam Chairwoman the reason being when I renovate the house I have to have a roof above my head. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand that but everybody would be in the same position.You're not different than anybody else. People would have to find somewhere to live. I renovated my house and moved in with a friend. VINCENT BERTAULT : If (inaudible) into the accessory apartment I would use that for my own personal benefit by the time I renovate MEMBER DANTES : This isn't really relevant to the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is relevant in the sense that it is an unorthodox procedure. The timing with which we can approve something has to be in place. Mr. Bressler is correct in having outlined the standards and if you meet the standards you generally get approved: Right now the 70 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 standard whether we can vary it or not the bottom line is, the code says the standard is not to seek variance relief but to put something on one floor. I sat in on helping develop that legislation so I can tell you what the spirit and intent of that law is without going back to the public hearing transcripts, it was to utilize existing accessory building to create more affordable and family oriented dwelling units that were small enough to not be a second dwelling but would begin to accommodate scattered site affordable and family units. They do them all over the country, granny flats. So the bottom line is, you either meet those standards or you don't. Right now if you think the code is lousy and vague go to the legislative body the Town Board and request that the code be clarified and changed. The Board here can grant relief when reasonable but with Special Exceptions typically it's not about granting relief it's about meeting the standards. Now there is ample room on a higher level if you give up your workshop to create both a small one car garage and an apartment on the ground level. Use the second story for storage loft or whatever you want if there's problems with head clearance. The bottom line is, I'm going to ask you outright are you willing to consider amending the plans to do that and if so I will hold this open to see what those amended plans might look like if you want us to make a determination based on what you've submitted then this Board is willing to do that too. ERIC BRESSLER : So are you asking whether you want us to give up the workshop? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am only saying to you that you have options. I'm looking at your plan and I'm saying, there's square footage there how much do you want to eke out of this building? ERIC BRESSLER : Well if we were to give up the workshop we still don't have a habitable space. I think the answer is we need to get rid of the garage and the small workshop.The small workshop doesn't do it that's the tail wagging the dog. So the choice clearly is if we give up the garage we don't need a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you don't. I'm asking this because I want to explore.options okay. I want to give the applicants every opportunity to conform if they can and they're willing to what the code now stipulates on the standards. If you would like time to discuss it and explore it we'll make that available. If you want us to simply close and make a determination we can do that too. I'm giving you the choice. I think the Board will be willing to is everybody agreeable to that? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We want to get this right, we want to be fair to property owners, we want to listen to community concerns. If you didn't have a garage you wouldn't have to have a ramp you'd have plenty of parking spaces flat on the ground. But you know you have to ask yourself what your priorities are. You can't necessarily leverage every single item you want on your wish list on a property encumbered with two front yards right and drainage issues and in a 71 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 Historic District. I mean you know Gary he's nodding his head cause he's an architect and he knows what I'm talking about. ERIC BRESSLER :Well let me just respond to that briefly, as far as being in a Historic District I don't see the logical connection between the upstairs downstairs apartment and the Historical District since the building as we've heard this afternoon the exterior is going to remain the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the ramp, it's the ramp I'm talking about not the building. The change in use is fine as long as you conform to the standards you're entitled to that Special Exception we know that. That's how Special Exceptions are, you meet the requirements you get the approval. You submit documentation showing you meet those requirements you get the approval that's how the law is written. It's different from variances which are far more flexible. ERIC BRESSLER :Well one thingthat I have not heard at all today was, any reason whythe upstairs downstairs restriction was necessary or even rational given the stated purpose of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can tell you what the discussion was when the code was written.The discussion was, most people have garages they could use part of it usually it was like over the garage or part of the garage they'd make it a one car garage or they'd give up the garage entirely for the apartment.The idea was to put a small apartment on one floor because it was considered part of a building. Sometimes it took up the whole building, sometimes it just took up a part of the building and the Board did not want to see elaborate two story creations. It was meant to be a little accessory apartment on one floor and we've seen this before. This is not the first application. ERIC BRESSLER : I'm still a little lost to understand the reason for one floor when the only thing that gets added is a staircase but GARY O'CONNOR : I too have read the testimony I guess when this was reopened and they expanded it from the home into the accessory structures and I know that there were other attorneys that were arguing to have the two story option. Their point was that you already have the 750 sq. ft. limitation so why limit the flexibility of top down and the response as I recall was that they just didn't want to open it and change it but that they'd have to take this on a one by one case basis because they're going to have to go through the ZBA anyway as I recall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it was always intended to be a one floor apartment, always. That was what the Town Board decided. Now does the Zoning Board have the power to grant variances from a code, yes. Do we usually do it when it comes to a Special Exception permit, no because they are not variance standards. We are looking at Special Exceptions standards: I mean we can argue this sixteen ways but no the Board will make a decision based on whatever you submit to us and what you want us to do that is your right. So if you want us to make a decision based on 72 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 what you have submitted we'll do so. I'm just simply saying that I know there are plenty of concerns about this unusual situation and with when and how this building will be inhabited okay which is again procedurally not I mean in the end it'll work out but procedurally what we try to do is just do something very practical but that is not for the applicant you know to have a place to live while they're undergoing restoration of the other thing but you know it's the chicken and the egg in this situation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie to that point and it sounds like we've been talking about the Special Exception while we've had neighbors and it's a public hearing, Mr. Bertault do you live presently in the house? VINCENT BERTAULT : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You live full time in the house on Navy St? VINCENT BERTAULT : Absolutely that's my primary residence for six years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so I'm just looking at the chat for a minute and it looks like the original 2014 Willow St. elevation only had one barn door,this is not the same elevation approved by HPC nor did they present this aberration to HPC. Does the ZBA Special Exception permit regarding the barn usurp the 2014 HPC Certificate of Approval Appropriateness? Please share the policy and procedure regarding this.Well the Building Department generally determines whether or not approval by the Historic Preservation Commission is required. I believe that that would be based upon whether or not the original HPC approval upheld the elevations that were approved. Then the previous, the use is not what's the issue, it's the structure it's the exterior of the structure in a historic district, you can make interior changes. It's the outside that they want you to preserve. So if in fact it's not changing what was approved in 2014 the likelihood is that it's only the use on the inside and they wouldn't have to go back to the HPC. If they're changing you know fenestration and ingress and egress and types of doors and so on and it simply doesn't look like the barn anymore then I would reckon that they probably would have to go back. The problem is there hasn't been a conversation because part of it is the applicant to some extent I understand didn't want to mess with getting another approval from HPC when in fact they didn't have the approval from the Zoning Board. ERIC BRESSLER : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I mean let's be fair, you can understand okay and if they need if such a thing were to be approved it would always be conditioned upon a revisiting an approval if required of the HPC. If the HPC wanted to change or modify what the elevation looked like that would their right and we would then have amended plans. So that is procedurally kind of how this works. 73 Regular.Meeting June 3, 2021 ERIC BRESSLER : We concur madam Chairwoman,that's exactly correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we still have some hands up, times getting on I mean we'll stay here all night if we have to I want to get this done as much as you do. We have let's bring in people who haven't spoken before. I think Evan Lewis and Charles Dean have not spoken before is that correct? Okay Evan Lewis, Mr. Lewis what would you like us to hear? EVAN LEWIS : My name is Evan Lewis and we are the neighbor we are Vincent's neighbors immediately to the west. We live on the property that was formally or at least two winters ago owned by Jeri Woodhouse so we're very familiar with many of the issues that Jeri raised and we've live here since or owned the property since 2014. Since that time and it's no secret to anybody particularly not Vincent the Bertault property has been in a constant state of upheaval of one kind or the other and it has reached a fever pitch in the course of the last I would say six months. As a general comment I think a lot of the frustration you're hearing in today's open session and certainly from me being one of the adjacent neighbors is it's almost impossible to keep track of what is being proposed, the application status, what's been approved, the applications that have been revised or removed and what of the construction that is going on on Vincent's property and Vincent and I are friendly and I hope that he achieves some degree of what he's looking for the property but it is almost impossible to understand what is going on and why it's been going on for seven years. So I hope that is just I don't know what in the normal course of business in that violent churn of things being approved and applied for is not being exploited to anyone's benefit. It certainly means that in the neighborhood as and I echo Gideon's point, every day you walk by and some new hole is being dug or some new structure has been temporary or not built on the property and then disappears three or four weeks later. As a focus group of one I have no idea what's happening. So I also believe the sequencing and I'm not telling tales out of school this is something Vincent and I discussed over a month ago,the sequencing is off. Digging happens first and demolition happens first and the communication happens later. So over a month ago I awoke to come outside and on the property line we share with Vincent right by where the pool would be a large trench had been dug by a gentleman on a backhoe and many of the roots of a sixty plus year old Copper Beech which is depicted on Gary's plans in various ways had been severed. I don't know the percentage it had been severed, Vince and immediately talked about it, he agreed that it would be looked at by some type of tree person I don't know if it was actually an arborist but I'm not an arborist. I don't know if that tree is going to die or not. It's probably seventy feet high, it's been there at least most of our lifetime it's sixty years minimum and my concern for various aspects of this project is the degree of confusion and the lack of communication. I don't know if that's an organizational point that can be addressed to some degree by the township and document keeping. I believe and I know Vincent is listening, I think there can certainly be clearer communication between Vincent and the neighbors but it does not at the moment feel like a project in which the character of the small town the concern 74 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 of the neighbors is being addressed in any substantive way. I think as a small element that we've discussed today I think that parking the parking issue I don't really care about the parking but it feels like it has the potential for a bait and switch. Oh well it'll go up a ramp, oh we'll put it here, oh well we can put it around the side. It doesn't feel well thought out and once it's all complete and the ZBA and I admire the work the ZBA does, we would have all moved on and if it changes substantially after the fact what redress to we have at that point? I think those are some of my significant points and the last thing I would say is, as regards the second story in the Special Exception I think it's a mischaracterization to say that it needs to be done a particular way because of the set of facts, they are not a set of facts. At the moment they are a set of drawings and a set of desires and I understand that. We've done renovations in the town, we've done renovations on houses that are within the Historic District, we've had things that we would like to do but those things we would like to do need to be balanced with the building code and what the HPC requires.So those aren't facts that we want a dormer it is a desire that we want a dormer and then it needs to work within the framework of code and historical preservation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you, let's see Charles Dean's hand is up. Can you bring him in please Liz. CHARLES DEAN : I'm a friend of Vincent's too (inaudible) Opties and Dinghies but there is a real problem on Willow St. and Navy St: in that what Vincent has been doing is really changing the character of that area especially this enormous barn. By raising it up onto a platform you know eight feet high above the(inaudible) has become an enormous monolith of a building. It no longer looks like an indigenous building in the village. I mean I don't know how I really think that the Historical Preservation Commission failed Orient in approving the move of the barn. When they did approve it they had a stipulation that it had to remain as is, in kind as a barn. Now I don't know if this was a strategic move but to move the barn get that approved by saying you would keep it as a barn and then ask for a variance to make an apartment in it and now he wants to be a two floor apartment is really becoming a house. So what is happening is we're going to be getting a second house on the property that was supposed to be kept as a barn and I think this is subverting the historic nature of the historic village which I'm very concerned about. Mr. Vincent's lawyer says that they don't like the code,they object to the law that it has to be on one floor,well there's all kinds of laws that I object to but you still have to abide by them. I don't think just because I don't like the Southold town code is a reason that he should be you know allowed to not follow it. I hope that in a way it's almost too late I mean the structure is so large and so raised and it's already going to be an eyesore forever. I don't think we have to make it worse by cause once they get an apartment and they are then they're going to have windows and you know it's not going to look like a barn anymore. Then they'll be going back to the Historical Preservation Commission and say well now we got approval to make it an apartment so we gotta do this and we'll put a window here that looks historic and eventually what (inaudible) historic 75 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 thing like a pseudo historical looking house there and to me it just seems like he's been very good at gaming the whole system. Maybe the ZBA can be the you know the firewall that stops this. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we have another hand up, Leanna Fernandez and Marcia Sheldon. Let's do Marcia Sheldon fist because I don't think she has spoken. MARCIA SHELDON : Hello everyone. I am also a neighbor of Vincent's and Claudia's. I'm with Lawrence Bernstein at 20 Vincent and while this is just me voicing what's been going on for us and echoing a lot of other people's comments but the complexity of this project is truly beyond challenging to get my mind around it, to get your mind you know everybody else's mind collective minds around it and you know we're living with this twenty four seven. Vincent knows how incredibly patient Lawrence and I have been with this whole process. We've lost six trees very old tall Sycamore trees.We're fully exposed every day to this excavation and we're spending a tremendous amount of money on privacy trees which we had not intended to do because we're still new residents and we love to garden and we had all these great plans and now we're investing money into this corner property to create some kind of privacy. Vincent is intending to collaborate with us so that's positive,we're concerned about our property value but I do not feel neutral about the barn. It is moving into an area that is quiet and safe and I mean we can just openly walk into the street of course with safety measures and not worry about all these cars coming but having an active dwelling there I mean it's like all of a sudden I have a new neighbor that was not supposed to be there. Now there is a ramp with three cars moving around. It is definitely unsettling so Vince and I really was not aware of the scope of this and you know we can talk about this again. I just really wanted to voice that this is not something that I feel neutral about. It's all of sudden someone's plunked down a dwelling next to you and there's going to be all this activity. We have a barn there's many people that do in the village which is mostly in the back of the house so (inaudible) barns and create pool houses relatively private. This is a unique piece of property that has bilateral exposure and it really has an enormous impact. I really echo what Evan was saying and it's been an enormous consumption of our time and we think about it every day and it's having an enormous impact so I'm not neutral. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your comments. I think we brought in one other person, Leanna is back and I know it's not Leanna and I've forgotten the name of the person who actually has that screen name. If you are there and you want to speak would you unmute yourself please. RICHARD GILLOOLY : Richard Gillooly. I just want without taking more of the Board's time, I want to echo my neighbor's concerns, we have suffered tremendously with misrepresentations. We were guaranteed by the Historic Commission when that barn was approved that it would kept as a storage building. We weren't happy about it being moved but that's the world. Now as our neighbors have said, the construction, the abandoned boats, the trucks that are parked there, 76 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 the no roof on that barn for several years I mean it's just been a nightmare and to have a ramp is drive down there and mock up a ramp and you'll see how it affects that whole neighborhood. It's just not appropriate. Thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie if I just may respond to Mr. Gillooly's comment just now and (inaudible) brought up at the very start of the meeting, the applicant had showed some elevations of the barn building where the ramp had the pitch of I think one and a half to twelve with a twenty five foot setback, maybe they can show the whole elevation also including the pool area. I'm still so confused,when I was at the site inspection prior to the original meeting I thought the barn was unusually high. I'm not exactly a tall person and when I revisited the site it seems so high so I'm so confused how the elevation can be so modest in that in the elevation drawing where visually I think the neighbors are commenting about the height and I certainly have seen that myself.So the question is, is it possible we can see the elevation including the pool the whole structure to better gauge the actual elevation versus the ramp height? GARY O'CONNOR : The elevation is going to show the building around the barn immediately adjacent to the barn has been brought up. So it does not appear as you know high out of the ground. So the elevation what you saw is what it's going to be. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but when you stand at grade GARY O'CONNOR : Right now the grading has not been completed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The foundation rather the silt plate is basically at my chin height. ERIC BRESSLER : I'd like to reiterate what Gary just said, the grading work is not yet complete so I think you may have been getting an inaccurate impression of what this was going to be when the grading is done. Is that right Gary? GARY O'CONNOR : That is correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But what I don't understand and I'm thinking more perhaps from the pool side let alone from the ramp side and you know the 25 foot setback for the accessory was puzzling to me but it's not just grading. When I think about grading it's like a couple of inches maybe to level something out. This is substantial fill and there seems to be even a wall that's going to retain the pool on the pool side, so that's what I'm trying to put that one side in perspective against the elevation that you illustrated with the one and half to twelve pitch for the ramp on the elevation drawing. That looks like modest grading where it's a foot or two which is already I think substantial but it seems to be like three or four feet of grading which I would argue is fill and if I'm havingthis feeling based on the application I can imagine what the neighbors are saying. So this is what I'm trying to better understand. 77 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 GARY O'CONNOR : Well there is there are walls and there is a raising of the grade so the building does not appear like it has got three feet long VINCENT BERTAULT : There is also a very important matter here, there's a new septic system which requires a filling of the land as well Gary if you want to be clear on that. GARY O'CONNOR : That's true. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So again it's fill not grading? VINCENT BERTAULT : It's fill and grading. GARY O'CONNOR : It's both. So the septic system has to be at a certain elevation above the water table so that also plays into the grading plan. EVAN LEWIS :This is Evan Lewis again the neighbor to the west. This may be a conversation with Vincent but unfortunately now I'm particularly confused. The ground between our two properties right now is level right so if you're talking about I'm not sure maybe Gary or Mr. Bressler can say what are we talking about in terms of elevation and how is it going to slope from the accessory building down towards my property or is that property going to be towards my property or is that property going to be at a certain level and then a retaining wall will be there and then Vincent's property will now be a foot higher?What is the elevation we're talking about? GARY O'CONNOR : The elevation between your property and Vincent's is going to remain the same. There is a wall inside of Vincent's adjacent to the barn that will a retaining wall which is going to raise the grade between that retaining wall to the barn. EVAN LEWIS : So there will be it will be different or will it be sloped? I mean our property will GARY O'CONNOR : No, no between your property and that wall remains the same. EVAN LEWIS : Correct and then on the other side of that wall the ground will be X inches or feet higher. GARY O'CONNOR : That's right, that's right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Mr. O'Connor how tall is that wall? GARY O'CONNOR : It varies depending on MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have an elevation that you could show that illustrates it? GARY O'CONNOR : Probably I'm going to bring in the approved grading plan. Can you see that screen? 78 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yep. GARY O'CONNOR :So here is the barn, here's the grade, here's the wall on the west side between Mr. Lewis's property this is the property line here the dark solid line, here's the pool see top wall, bottom wall. EVAN LEWIS : Mr. O'Connor not being an architect can you go back to that top wall bottom wall please. GARY O'CONNOR :That is the retaining wall here, here's the pool here's the building. EVAN LEWIS :Yes I understand that, the TW I assume refers GARY O'CONNOR :Top wall and bottom wall. EVAN LEWIS : Understood, 7.9 and 3.5R the number of feet above or what are those GARY O'CONNOR : The bottom wall is 3.5 feet relative and 7.9 is the top of the wall. EVAN LEWIS :Top of the wall off of what? It's certainly not an 8 foot wall off the ground. GARY O'CONNOR : Off of the ground so if the ground you're talking about 4 feet 4.4 feet difference between the top of the wall and the bottom. These are dry wells, this is a dry well. There's a galley of dry wells in the front and over here and as you know Mr. Lewis you experienced right now I've seen photographs ofwaterthat is sort of running between your along this property line is that correct sir? EVAN LEWIS : In a good storm there is pooling there. The previous owners installed a number of dry wells I don't know where they are.Again my concern is really twofold,one that as a lay person it seems that we've got to become architectural experts to you know really dig into these plans some of which seem to be on-line some of which don't and number two, my primary concern is the health of the sixty year old tree the Copper Beech which does not seem to be depicted here I know it is depicted on some of your other drawings but effectively not to reference the barn but the horse is out of that barn right? The roots have been cut, they've been cut for a month, they have not been backfilled so sadly this entire commission will have moved on to the point of which we determine whether that tree is going to die or not right? It will probably be a few years before if it is has been irreparably damaged by the digging that's already gone on. We will have all moved on except for that tree which is irreplaceable.You can't throw that kind of money right as you guys both well know that you can't transplant a seventy foot tree. So again the sequencing on many of the aspects of this is out of order. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you Gary you can take that down now. I think there was a couple of other,there's a Gary Garrels who wants to speak and a Marianne 79 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, I know that you just asked Mr. O'Connor to take that drawing down but with the retaining walls and it's clearly 4 feet high, where the retaining walls are by the house they show steps going down to the rain pool/pond area, but there's no steps so how do they propose to access into the accessory structure if it's 4 feet high? GARY O'CONNOR : You're talking about MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Access to the accessory. You just indicated that there was a retaining wall that's over 4 feet high when I've looked at this I've questioned it, I don't understand it how you propose access into the structure. GARY O'CONNOR : The ground here is sloping down to a 6, 5, 4 this is 6.6, 7.2 and this is stepping up MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But isn'tthat a retaining wall rightthere?These are not retaining walls? GARY O'CONNOR : Yes they are sir but the ground 3.5, 4, 5, 6 the ground is moving left to right upward. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So this very the far wall to the right where the little mouse cursor is right now, that 7 and 7 is basically at grade. So somebody standing right where the mouse is you're able to walk towards GARY O'CONNOR : The wall is disappearing into the ground (inaudible). VINCENT BERTAULT : The reason being the land on the front towards the south Gary if you want as well because the house is going to be exactly the same process is lift up hence the step on the right hand side because we're going as well up and filling this whole south north east area where it's necessary for the septic and the fact that we have to raise up the house hence the level of the entire property on the east side is at more or less the same level. Gary if you want show the GARY O'CONNOR : Yeah the ground here is 4 1/2, it's 6 feet over here, 6 % at that corner, this is high corner it's 4.3 here. So the ground is naturally sloping from the right to the left, east to west. ERIC BRESSLER : Does that answer your questions Mr. Planamento? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I can better understand that now thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well I think you have to appreciate that the changes in plans that were submitted it's pretty clear that both some Board Members in addition to the public are a little confused about the specifics of what it is we're looking at. Most residential properties we deal with do not require such major excavations, such major you know kind of drainage work, retaining walls and so on. It's very, very hard for the public in particular to put all these pieces 80 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 together. So what I really want to make sure we have available is that both Board Members and the public have only in their possession the final plans, site plan, drainage plan, elevations all of those things a survey that we should be looking at. ERIC BRESSLER : Madam Chairwoman may I make a recommendation in that regard? My suggestion is because of the necessity for documentary completeness of the record,for example the submissions that we made with respect to HPC that we then forwarded along to you I would respectfully suggest that the old plans be stamped with a stamp that says something like super ceded or old so that they remain in your files since they were filed with you and that the current plans contain a stamp to the effect of current or something of that nature so that the Board can distinguish so that things that were submitted the Board would not be deleted from the record which was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fair sure that's fine. I just want to make sure that it's simple. ERIC BRESSLER : If there's any question in that regard please feel free to reach out to me or to Gary and we will clarify which documents should contain which stamp. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine, I'll make sure that staff does that so that we're all on the same page and based upon that and the discussion about parking on site and based upon the possibility of reexamining how you're doing a layout and what the use of that barn is going to be and ongoing public interest there were one or two more people here which I'll get to in a second. I think what we should probably do is just leave this open to the Special Meeting in two weeks. That gives you a chance to digest all of this, it gives the public an opportunity to see what's in our file completely if they chose to do that and that way you have some time to think through what you heard today and so will we. I would have liked to have closed this but I think there are some things that we discussed that need to be addressed and we just all want to make sure that we're on the same page and we get this right. ERIC BRESSLER : In that regard madam Chairwoman, is there any objection to closing that portion of the hearing with respect to which we've heard essentially no objection? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which would be what? ERIC BRESSLER : That would be the porch and the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I want to see what you propose to do Mr. Bertault said that there's a possibility of some off-street parking spaces on Navy St. and I would like to see that's not about the variance I know but I can't I don't want to fragment this, it's a complex project with a lot of moving parts not typical of what we see when you're talking about a setback and you know that I mean you've done this probably longer than I have. 81 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 ERIC BRESSLER : I have heard the only reason I suggest that is, I have heard a lot of comments and complaints from the neighbors about the speed with which this is moving forward and it is possible for us to move forward with portions of this project sooner rather than later. If the Board determines if it wants to deal with it as a whole than that's going to be the Board's determination but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think it's possible to close one application and not the other but I would prefer to do that in two weeks because I want to make sure the public has an opportunity especially Orient is a small community, a lot of people talk to each other and I want to make sure in fairness that we have in our files for their access particularly for those who weren't able to be here today the ones that as you said are stamped current and the ones that were previous right submitted but are now amended to the current plans. I think that's only fair to the public. It's taken this long, another two weeks is not going to make a big difference. RICHARD GILLOOLY : The elevation of the ramp. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pardon?You want the elevation of the ramp. Well I'm suggesting they want to I want to give them time to even consider the ramp altogether or changing it some way or another.That's up to the applicant. We are prepared to decide on what they tell us they want us to decide on okay but I want to give them an opportunity to take this in and discuss it and see where we land. ERIC BRESSLER : At this Special Meeting in two weeks madam Chairwoman will it be open to comment and discussion CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no it's not a hearing and we don't take testimony as Special Meetings we deliberate on draft decisions, we can't do that. We can close it based upon written submission or written comments or if it's absolutely necessary from your point of view or from the Board's point of view we will adjourn it to the next month and then we can take comments. I would prefer not to do that. I think the neighbors are eager to get things resolved. Certainly this Board is eager to as is the applicant as your client. It's in the interest of everyone but I want to make sure the decisions are based upon correct information and a complete viewing opportunity make sure that everybody sees what they should be looking at. If somebody has questions I suppose they can call your office and ask them or call Gary's office. That's not typical but if they have a specific question I can't speak to anybody unless it's before the public. Open meetings law bars any of our Board Members from talking to anybody even if it means clarifying what an elevation is doing, we can't do it. ERIC BRESSLER : You're absolutely correct it would be improper to do that. 82 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea so you know if you're willing and somebody says gee I don't understand like Nick just said I don't get what that retaining wall looks like, I don't know what it's finally going to look like, I don't know if it's going to flood over on my property if somebody has that kind of question if you're willing to entertain additional questions then fine. If not that's your prerogative too because you have no obligation to do that. Our office can't do that. ERIC BRESSLER : We will take under advisement any inquiries that are presented either to this office or to Gary's office. I think we've heard the universe of issues regardless of their relevance to what's before the Board. What would be the date of the Special Meeting? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : June 17th. We typically convene open session at 5 o'clock, we usually have executive session prior to that. It will be posted as usual on our town's website on the calendar the Zoom link and all that stuff. If the public has any questions that you would be willing to entertain I guess what we should do is have them call the office cause everybody has that phone number and ask them for your office Mr. Bressler,your office Mr. O'Connor depending on what kind of question they have (inaudible) phone number or an email address. What is your preference, how do you want to handle it in other words? GARY O'CONNOR : I think email would be preferable. ERIC BRESSLER : I think so, I think that would be the appropriate form of interaction. My only caveat is we do not you know when we take these things under advisement we've taken careful notes as to what was discussed today and the answers that have come mainly from Mr. O'Connor and we don't intend to rehash these things. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand that,that's a waste of your time that's a little bit abusive. People who were here they heard a lot, we all heard a lot we've been very patient on both these complicated applications and I think we flushed out I don't know what additional testimony we could possibly take. GARY GARRELS : My name is Gary Garrels and I live at 595 Navy so just behind Lawrence Bernstein and Marcie Sheldon and I have in direct view onto the property with the barn. My husband and I recently permanently relocated here from San Francisco so Mr. O'Connor I'm acutely aware of the street scape in San Francisco. I'm also I love the landscape here, I love the kind of very gentle shifts in grade but the overall (inaudible) of Orient. We have a slight grade but there are certainly I'm not aware of any ramps in Orient. Adding a ramp to the street here is a I would say a significant visual and you know transportation issue that people have raised but I am not aware of any ramp here in Orient and I find it an extraordinary intrusion into this landscape and into the way the streets look, the way the properties you know flow. In fact I have (inaudible) meeting has been very, very enlightening I guess I'm not sure that's the right word but to understand the kind of staggering impacts this project is making on this neighborhood it is extremely intrusive 83 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 visually in every possible way. I look at that barn and I've been wondering for a very long time what's going on there and I was under the understanding that it was a barn. I was not under the understanding that this is actually a whole new residential addition to the neighborhood. I was a resident in San Francisco and I know that streetscape very, very well and I love the contrast here but I want to butt in with one last thing which is about the comment about expanding from 750 sq. ft. to 830 something, again where in San Francisco of you know what 70 sq. ft. or 80 sq. ft. or whatever can make is a difference to an apartment because apartments there are 10 sq.ft., 20 sq. ft., 15 sq. ft. makes a difference. A very dear friend of mine who was a major donor at Stanford University gave me a lesson some years back which I take to heart and will never forget it. He said you know what happens when the camel gets his nose under the tent the next thing you know you've got a camel in the tent and I see a camel here big and large sitting in this barn. So I think that it seems to me I have to say I've been very impressed by this meeting, by the way it's been conducted by the reasonableness of the Chair and the Board and I hope that they I hope that everyone understands how seriously they take their positions and that a flagrant disruption of the law that's on the books I think is something that really has serious implications for the future. So this has been to me a very sad and somewhat dismaying of understanding of the developments that are going on here. But anyway thank you for letting me comment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. I do want to just correct one thing you said, they're not requesting to enlarge the square footage of what the code permits an accessory apartment to be. They're proposing to locate part of it on the first floor and part of it on the second story. The code says one apartment, one floor but they're not violating the size. A dwelling by code is 850 sq. ft. or larger that is why this is got to be 750 sq. ft. or smaller. It is an apartment which is considered to be an accessory use to the principle use. The Town of Southold allows accessory apartments in principle dwellings. It used to be the Zoning Board had Special Exception permit purview over those and we would look at those. When the apartment in accessory structures law came into being people then were able to put apartments in their homes their principle dwellings as of right as long as they didn't exceed a certain percentage of square footage of what the principle dwelling is. So it gets complicated but I want everyone to be clear that what they're proposing requires an approval based upon the standards in that accessory apartment code and they're not trying to be bigger than you know what the code allows. We have a Mariella a Richard and a Barbara Cohen. Let's bring in Mariella. MARIELLA OSTROSKI : I just want to tell you that I'm on the HPC and I want to understand a little bit more about who gave the approval for the wall? I wanted to understand where that came from so maybe Gary can speak to that,the wall orthe retaining wall orthe cement thing whatever you want to call it somebody else called it a moat. I just want to know where does that approval come from because it didn't come before the HPC and usually a fence will come before the HPC 84 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 so I would have assumed that this would. So I just want to be clear and understand what the signature on that is, could you give me that information please Gary. GARY O'CONNOR : The Building Department approved this as part of our grading plan, grading and drainage plan. MARIELLA OSTROSKY : So is there a signature on it and a date? MEMBER DANTES : They would approve the drainage plan they wouldn't approve the visual aesthetic. I mean I didn't realize it was 4 feet above grade until today to be honest with you. MARIELLA OSTROSKY : Mr. Dantes are you part of the Building Department? MEMBER DANTES : No I'm on the Zoning Board. MARIELLA OSTROSKY : I'm sorry I don't know everyone. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) the Building Department your question. MARIELLA OSTROSKY : Could you give me that answer Mr. O'Connor since we're here? GARY O'CONNOR : The Building Department approved the document, we have approved documents from the Building Department. MARIELLA OSTROSKY : As far as the HPC is concerned we don't know about a ramp so that is something that is outside what we know. What we did approve was the document from 2014 and so you've already made it very clear that if this was to go through as far as your variance it would require coming back to the HPC. We have never seen any of the drawings that you were showing today with regard to this even the exterior drawings, we didn't see any of that. I just want to make sure that you know that that has not been submitted yet to the HPC. GARY O'CONNOR : That's correct. We have not submitted to the HPC in fact we were advised in August of last year to take this action for use to the Board this Board prior to going to the HPC (inaudible) any changes to the exterior of the building obviously would have to be or subjected to HPC. MARIELLA OSTROSKY : Based on the images that you showed today you know that there are major changes, do you agree with that? GARY O'CONNOR : I disagree with that. The building as you see is the same as was presented back in 2014. 85 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 MARIELLA OSTROSKY : Well sir I think there's a misunderstanding so I would recommend that you go through the process of it showing the renderings as you are proposing them today compared to what they were in August of 2020. GARY O'CONNOR :We floated a proposed design to the Board in your early sessions early review sessions with the HPC and MARIELLA OSTROSKY :You dropped all discussion about the barn and went onto just the existing structure GARY O'CONNOR : That's right and we've kept the fagade the same. Early in July/August floated a different window scenario very different that would certainly require HPC approval. It was more modern than the barn is and we back tracked from that and again that was in an informal session with the Board. Those drawings were left on the Board's website where people were looking at it and assuming that that's the direction the project was going and I think got up in arms about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're referring to the Board, are you referring to the Historic Preservation Commission?You're not referring to the Zoning Board or Planning Board. GARY O'CONNOR : No I'm sorry, I'm referring to early conversations when we initially brought the barn we brought the whole project we wanted to show the bigger master plan for the whole project and with that was the change in use and the change in use we immediately backed out of (inaudible) through the HPC channel because the HPC told us that we needed to go to the Zoning Board first for use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have that in the record? MARIELLA OSTROSKY : I would recommend that you look at the Certificate of Appropriateness from June 2014 and recognize that it says the structure is being restored and preserved as is.The proposed relocation of the barn and shed will afford the applicant the ability to maximize the use of property while preserving the character of the structures. So those are two statements that are part of the resolution that(inaudible) having moved this barn.There have been no renderings that illustrate it as being exactly like that to us. I'm just putting that out there so that we're all on the same page so that we all understand that if you get this variance the drawings that you have do not look like the building that you had in August of 2020. ERIC BRESSLER : Madam Chairwoman I think to continue to have an interchange between a sitting member of HPC and the architect in the context of this proceeding about what was filed and what wasn't filed is not helpful to this proceeding and indeed is not relevant. (inaudible) if we need to 86 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 go back to the HPC we will go back to the HPC. We left the HPC on their instruction and came to you. If we need to go back we will. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay fair enough. Richard with his hand raised. RICHARD HOBLOCK : Hello my name is Richard Hoblock and I'm a neighbor on Navy St. and I happen to live in San Francisco for fourteen years and renovate a historic house in San Francisco and the funny thing to me is that we had to have everything planned, done, stamped by walls, retaining walls and construction techniques and historical and every single set of plans had to set and done and stamped before anyone can break ground. I think that may be beneficial cause then progress can't drag on for six and seven years. Also I don't have a lot to say about it other than that if it was supposed to be a barn and we bought this house with a barn behind us I hope it stays as a barn because it's funny how windows happen to develop and light comes into other rooms and there's a lot of energy going on in other structures that wasn't there before and that in fact changes a neighborhood. I also would like to say that it is a mess over here a real mess with the concrete and the trucks and I have never seen I think they're building a parking garage. That's just so (inaudible)to what I think beautiful Orient is. Also as far as the ramp going up to a parking structure, I'm rather a visual person and to have ramps going up out of nowhere and have a very almost very beautiful flat landscape where you can see distant water vistas is pretty obscene. It's gross and I think that people know it, I think they're trying to get away with something honestly and I think it's not right but that's all. Thank you guys, the meeting has been great. This has been better than any Netflix series so thank you all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we should turn the ZBA meetings into a Netflix show. We're going to have to wrap this up pretty soon. We have I guess a second comment from Tim Frost let's let him in and then we're going to see where we go with this. TIM FROST : I just in the interest of transparency, one thing I would ask as we go forward with this since there's been so many different plans that have been proposed over the years and given the overlap between what the HPC does and what the ZBA does, I would like to suggest that we have on the HPC website and I know you don't have any control over that or at least on their filing of documents, what it is specifically that they approved at their most recent meeting and we know what it is the final plans that they are proposing for adoption by the ZBA. I am just totally confused about elevations and what is new and what is existing and it really doesn't matter what they wanted to do in the past and isn't being done but I am very, very interested in exactly what the HPC approved and what it is that is before the ZBA and we get that in final form for what was approved by HPC and what is up for approval by the ZBA. I think that is a reasonable thing to put before the public given all the confusion and I'd also just like to amplify and just thank the Board for their diligence in this and for an extremely well run meeting. 87 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we're very that's our job, we try. So we already talked about doing that and it's pretty clear. We have the drawings from Gary that you know are now current. Mr. Bressler submitted them and we'll make sure that our staff checks with Gary to make sure that we're absolutely accurate, we will stamp them as current or we'll just put the date on them, today's date let's say cause we have a date stamp and you can ignore anything that isn't stamped with today's date. The HPC did not do any approvals recently at all on the barn that was an old one which we do have in our record and you've heard a lot about it. The reason being that I'm going to accept the comments that counsel and the architect said which is that they started the conversation and stopped it with HPC because they were suggested to come to the ZBA first. So this is why we're taking our time and because we don't want to fragment what is basically one site with many moving parts as I said. We don't want to see it piece meal it doesn't make sense to do that. As a planner as an architect you do need to do what Gary said earlier, look at the big picture that's why you brought in everything, you look at the totality. So we're going to do that, we're going to get those current drawings into our files and again if you have trouble accessing Laserfiche you don't know how to do it, call our office,we have a very dedicated and helpful staff they will help you find it or they will send you a link and you will be able to take a look if you wish to do so. If you wish to submit any comments on it you have the option to do that through our office because the hearing is not closed yet. If you have specific questions that only the attorney or the architect can answer they have already agreed that the staff can give out their email addresses. Now actually Eric I have to ask you a legal question, does that email communication become part of the public record or is that attorney client privilege? We've never done this I don't know. ERIC BRESSLER : It's certainly not attorney client privilege because they're not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're not their attorney. ERIC BRESSLER : Right. On the other hand unless and until that is submitted to the Board it is not part of the record in my opinion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I just want to be clear about that cause I don't want the public thinking 0000h so and so told me but then they didn't tell the ZBA what they told me. Either it's going to be on the record and you will submit it as part of our record or you'll just say no we as a courtesy were answering the questions period. ERIC BRESSLER : Let me say in that regard that we will not be giving any legal advice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course. ERIC BRESSLER : I pushed the bounds of that today when people ask questions about what occurred in front of the HPC just in the interest of moving this thing along but we will not be 88 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 giving anybody legal advice and if there are questions that we can answer within the bounds of professional responsibility we will endeavor to do so and I tell you that madam Chairwoman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's perfectly fair and appropriate and if you can't answer their questions because it's beyond the boundaries of what is reasonable then you just tell them that that's all. Who's that, Tim Frost, go ahead. TIM FROST : I just want to go back I realize that you know you are not involved with the HPC but my understanding is that there was a resolution on April 15th, it did approve detailed work plans and I just reiterate my point that I would like to make sure that I have a chance to view what were those detailed work plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That is the current set of drawings that the Zoning Board has and that is what will be on our website. Basically they stepped the back portion is lower alright the new addition onto the back of the house is lower than what was originally planned and a cupola that was perched on top of a portion a new portion is removed. ERIC BRESSLER : And madam Chairwoman a dormer was slightly altered. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so we have their Certificate of Appropriateness that was signed and we have those drawings. So when you go to the ZBA file you will now have the approved plans by HPC and the plans we are looking at that the applicant is proposing requesting that we approve also. TIM FROST :Thank you for that clarification. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's one other person and this is going to be the last one. Stewart Edelman has a hand raised. STUART ED'ELMAN : My name is Stuart Edelman, we live at 205 Willow St. which is on the corner of Willow and Vincent. So basically we live almost our front door is right across the street from the barn. I just want to make a comment that I find it very disturbing to learn today that there will be a ramp that entrance into the garage because that ramp faces the front door of our house and needless to say anything can happen. I think it's been a moving target of what really all of us in the neighborhood are so bewildered by what's happening, there's no real clear picture. Everybody is assuming not the best but the worst and I think a clarity needs to be so everybody really knows what is going on here. I'm just going to make my point is and I'm trying to be a good neighbor and a friend of everybody but having a ramp directly across the street from my front door I find it very disturbing. That's all I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we're giving by holding this over to the June 17th meeting we are giving the applicant,the applicant's attorney and architect an opportunity to take in what they've 89 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 heard. We've already said we would ask them to consider the possibility I'm not going to tell them what to do but to consider the possibility of not having a garage but having an apartment on the ground floor and putting parking on-site that is not elevated. We'll see what they come up with. They said they're going to put some possible parking on the Navy St. side off street, if that's so we would like to see where it's going to go on a site plan so that it's clear to the public and to the Zoning Board what you intend to do. I would much rather be looking at a proposal than giving alternative relief or amending or you know it's just clearer just much clearer and procedurally more appropriate. We want the applicant and the architect and counsel to have an opportunity to make some decisions based on what they heard and what they heard from the Board. The public should be able to take a look at these drawings. I can't promise they'll all be up there tomorrow. We have a very, very busy office but they will certainly be up there as quickly as possible and we'll just take it from there. Again feel free to call the office and just say is it on the website now and how do I get it but give them at least to maybe Monday or Tuesday because they're going to have to check with the architect to make sure we really have exactly what their proposing. I think we do I just want it verbally confirmed cause you will have stamped those drawings with a date I mean not stamped but there will be a date on the drawing with a sheet number and all of that kind of thing. So if we can collaborate and make sure we have what we need we're good to go, make sure they're on Laserfich and marked current or with today's date. It's been long and tiring and productive I hope for everybody and that's what democracy looks like so we're all here to try and the important thing is to understand, the Zoning Board has an obligation to grant variances when they meet the standards for granting them. We also have an obligation to protect the character of the community in which a variance is examined. So it's a challenging job sometimes it's pretty easy, come back with a swimming pool in the side yard and tell us why you know but we are increasingly seeing lots more challenging things before the Zoning Board because there's a huge, huge demand for property out here. People are buying stuff sight unseen and then they want to do a lot of things to them. So we're getting you know we're running out of land and real estate so the envelope if often getting pushed and it's a challenging job but it's an important one we take it very seriously and we really appreciate the public chiming in. I want to thank the attorney and the architect for being so well prepared they always are. It was very helpful to do screen sharing. I think you were able to inform the public much more clearly about exactly what's being proposed because people are not used to seeing this sort of thing particularly with elevation AL changes with ponding, with drainage, with water tables I mean it's just layer and layer of information that is very hard to imagine and it is not it has happened to this Board that we thought we understood what we were approving and suddenly we drive by and see it built and it looks like a motel. I mean I don't mean by aesthetic appearance but I mean by (inaudible) because it had to be FEMA compliant we didn't understand exactly what you know based elevation wise and what freeboard was and suddenly you know it's on eight foot pilings and it's really out of character with the neighborhood. Well it's hard to see 90 Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 something like that happen. Nobody wants to have I don't want to be a Board member where someone comes by says how did you let that happen. Well sometimes we have to let it happen because that's the law but other times we can find reasonable ways to mitigate adverse impacts. Enough with my soliloquy, thank you for indulging me and my lecture d'jour, I think we've sort of had it. Why don't we, we know what we're going to do and so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn both of these applications to the Special Meeting on June 17th, written submission is consequently open and anybody who was here or wasn't here who wants to take a look at the file and send in anything else you can do that including the applicants who will have an opportunity to revisit things that they've heard here if they chose to do that. It's their choice. Anything else from any Board Members comment, question last minute? Are we ready to vote on the motion to adjourn both of them I'll do them simultaneously to the Special Meeting? I think I'm seeing heads nodding. So the motion is made, is there a second on that motion? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob seconded the motion. Liz would you call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSITANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. 91 Question Report Report Generated: 6/4/20219:34 Topic WebinarlD 95590730347 Actual Start Time Actual Duration(minutes) #Question Zoning Board of Appeals June 3, 2021 Regular Meeting 6/3/20218:50 531 38 Question Details Question#CluestionAsker Name Asker Email Answer(s) i rn 1 hard to hear you Leslie Joseph Noc-Carttiny 7 2 se application requires hpc new application and approval, Barbara-I.Cohen 3 Please screen share the plan Barbara Friedman 4 1 Please show where the pool fence is,and what it looks like -Barbara Friedman FIvL answered 5 These are not the approved HPC drawings Barbara Friedman The current drawings up on the screen still show the cupola which in the HPC 6 approval has been removed. Anne Surchin 7 [The summer dining room is one story with a 19'high ceiling. Anne Surchin live answered 8 this is not san Francisco. This is a small village. Liz Welch these parking spaces removes willow tree, another violation to the 9 HPC approval would be required for such a ramp. mariella 2014 hoc decision. 10 There has been no accessory apartment application with the HPC. mariella IThe elevated ramp was never proposed to the HPC.Only the 2014 approved ramp 11 lever came before the HPC. Anne Surchin 12 1 would like to speak,Bill Kanz,My hand is raised, William Kanz kirri,please make sure the SE application file also includes verification from building dept calculation of living area,as per the ZBA checklist for submission. This is critical 13 -to this application. Thank you lBarbara J.Cohen 14 Was permission giving for removing the three trees?Or necessary? i EJ Camp Parking spaces requires removal of historic Willow tree,yet another violation of HPC 15 2014 decision. I Barbara J.Cohen 16 public has no plans to reviewfl! where is the bldg dent verification? Barbara J.Cohen I don't think the barn ..k the barn 17 THe HPC C of A in 2014 states the following with reference to the barn: mariella elevations are the approved HPC plans WHEREAS,the proposed relocation of the historic barn and shed,according to the plans submitted,will result in the structures being restored and preserved as is,and WHEREAS,the proposed relocation of the barn and shed will afford the applicant the ability to maximize the use of his property while preserving the character of the 18 structures,and mariella 19 work has already been done to framing, Barbara J.Cohen 20 .11 have my hand raised to ask a question about the parking spots jgid eonMarranp ,elo 21 bertault is incorrect Barbara J.Cohen Complete up-to-date drawings must be submitted that illustrate the previous and . e . proposed barn drawings.Please ask Mr.O'Connor to show the drawings for the barn 22 that are up to date and asked for as you are requesting. mariella The original 2014 Willow street elevation only had I barn door.This is not the same 23 elevation as approved by HPC,nor did thev present this aberration to HPC. Anonymous Attendee Board should be specific as to new pla nti ngs.....little saplings or mature as what 24 exists Barbara J.Cohen Please advise the procedure of approval for special exceptions when as submitted it will not adhere to HPC C of A RESOLUTION#6.17.14.1 25 June 18,2014 mariella 26 Please address this procedure for clarification between the board/commission mariella 27 keep record open Barbara J.Cohen Does the special exception approval of the ZBA regardingthe barn usurp the 2014 28 HPC C of A Resolution? Please share the policy and procedure regarding this. mariella When the HPC approved the move of the barn in 2014,it was dependent on keeping 29 the barn as is. How can this varience be approved? Charles Dean I think this is a great point. 30 1thank you ;mariella the elevation&barn was triggered by flood requirements. 31 there:is long history of public comment regarding backing up into willow street Barbara J.Cohen . "Approved Grading Plan"for the wall. Please advise where the approval came 32 from. mariella continue hearing,require final proposed plans and all other missing elements of application. 33 let's not do this on the fly Barbara J.Cohen New drawings should be submitted with every alteration or amendment. 34 Documents should be dated which reflect that which is most current. mariella 35 Are their anv ramifications for the loss of these trees?On both adioining properties?ILiz Welch 36 1 Parking proposals on Navy should be illustrated- Imariella 37 do we have verification of bldg sf" Barbara J.Cohen 38 me too! Jeanne Markel Regular Meeting June 3, 2021 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. &,aSignature : �' �� Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE :June 15, 2021 93