Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/02/2022 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York June 2, 2022 10:15 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member (Vice Chair) (Via Zoom) KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JOHN BURKE— Deputy Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN—Office Assistant June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Jennifer and James Maye#7626 4- 16 Emmanuel and Barbara Caravanos#7628 16- 21 Keith Hughes and Ellen Hughes#7629 22 - 24 Stella Mallas#7633 24- 28 Steve and Fortune Mandaro#7635 28-35 Karibu, LLC/Pascal Scharry#7638 35 -40 John M. Carroll and M. Amelia Murphy#7636 41 -45 Jotas Corporation #7637 45 - 62 Andriy Lototskyy#7667 63 - 65 Samuel and Rebecca Lissner#7639 65 - 72 Janet Mastropolo#7641 72 -75 Lyle and Kathleen Girandola #7642 75 - 78 SV Greenport LLC, dba/Sound View Greenport#7630 78-80 SV Greenport LLC, dba/Sound View Greenport#7631 78-80 SV Greenport LLC, dba/Sound View Greenport#7632 78-80 June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Board of Appeals Regular Meeting for June 2, 2022. Let's please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Let's also have a moment of silence for the children's lives were lost in Uvalde, Texas. Thank you very much. This meeting is not only in person but also on Zoom so Liz would you please review with everyone the protocol for asking to speak if they so choose. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie, good morning everyone. For those on Zoom if anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask that you raise your hand and we will give you further instructions on how you will be able to speak. If you are using a phone please press *9 to raise your hand and we will let you know what you need to do next. I do have the Mayes on for the upcoming hearing 'but just hang tight until the hearing.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a couple of work session items here it's not on here but we have discussed it. I'm going to make a motion to amend the Norton Decision which 'is #7624 to remove the one condition that was included in that variance approval, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Rob, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Aye. Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests at Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617:5 c including the following: Jennifer and James Maye, Emmanuel and Barbara Caravanos, Keith Hughes and Ellen Hughes, Stella Mallas, Steve and Fortune Mandaro, Karibu, LLC, John M. Carroll and M. Amelia Murphy, JOTAS Corporation, Andriy Lototskyy, Samuel and Rebecca Lissner, Janet Mastropolo and Lyle and Kathleen Girandola so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA Second June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have a possible resolution to close the following hearing, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn application #7607SE Katherine Hubbard to the Special Meeting on June 16th, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7626—JENNIFER and JAMES MAYE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first public hearing is for Jennifer and James Maye #7626. MEMBER LEHNERT : Leslie I'm recusing myself from this one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Just for the benefit for those on Zoom and people in the audience, we have a full Board Nick Planamento is with us on Zoom this morning instead of in person. I'm going to read this into the record. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-123, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 30, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting built" alterations (convert screen porch to living space, new heat, waterside deck) to an existing seasonal cottage known as Cottage No. 1 and legalize "as built" alterations (convert screen porch to living space, new heat)to an existing seasonal cottage known as Cottage No. 2 at 1) Cottage No. 1 & 2 non-conforming uses shall not be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered or moved unless the use of such buildings are changed to a conforming use, 2) Cottage No. 1 located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 910 Fleetwood Rd. (adj. to East Creek) in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the application? JAMES MAYE : Yes my name is James Maye and I'm acting as agent for my wife Jen Maye who is the owner of the property and is also here with me today. Just a brief history, the property was recently inherited from Jenn's aunt who purchased the property in 1974. The property consists of two dwellings known as 835 & 875 in the application. Between 1974 & 1976 there was work performed on the two cottages on the property to convert them from seasonal to year round dwellings. We don't have records of exactly what work was completed or the exact timing but there were records of the CO that was issued by the Building Inspector in 1976 as well as the supplemental letter at the same time from the Building Inspector both of which are included in the packets. That letter indicated that the cottages had heat systems installed in every room and the dwellings were found to comply with the Housing Code for one family occupancy. So the designation of the two dwellings as year round dwellings is also indicated on the property card and the tax bill. In the process for applying for the updated rental permits after taking ownership we had the Building Inspector come out and he noted that there were updates to the property which included new,windows and doors and then there Was a newer heat system since 1976. So we're seeking approval for the non-conforming work that was completed many years ago so that way the dwelling can continue their existing use and we can obtain an updated rental permits. As per item number two we have an "as built" deck and our estimation that the "as built" deck was installed in early 2000's, since it was indicated on the survey and still in good condition so we're seeking 1.2 ft. of setback variance and approval of the work. We received Trustee approval for the deck last year. This is a narrow lot among other narrow lots on Fleetwood Rd. that have structures that do not meet setback requirements it's all pre-existing and has been in place for many years and hasn't changed the character of the neighborhood as far as we think as many houses have waterside decks too. Lastly, just for clarification to the general public we're not seeking to add or modify the property in any way, we simply want to get approval for work that was done under previous ownership many years ago and be in good standing as property owners. So my wife's family has been coming out to the North Fork for over seventy years and we also own a June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting historical home on Little Neck Rd. so we want to maintain safe dwellings and just preserve what currently exists.That's all. MEMBER DANTES : Can I just ask you a quick question? JAMES MAYE : Yes MEMBER DANTES : I am confused cause I have the CO from 1974 and the CO from 1976 so the Notice of Disapproval calls it seasonal cottages but it looks like the conversion like you said was made in 1976 and it was in fact legalized in 1976. JAMES MAYE : Correct MEMBER DANTES : Why was is the Notice of Disapproval calling it a seasonal cottage conversion? JAMES MAYE : We had the 'same questions and I think it stemmed from our inspection from the Building Inspector last year when we tried to get the rental permits he had indicated on his notes that it was still indicated as a seasonal so I don't know if there was some kind of mix up on what he was looking at for his paperwork on his side when he took those notes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you tell me what the square footage is of each of the cottages or dwellings? JAMES MAYE : Yes, Unit 1 which is known as 875 the square feet is approximately 538 sq. ft. and then 835 Unit 2 is approximately 680 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The reason that I ask is because they did seem to be rather small but according to state building code something is not a dwelling unless it's 850 sq. ft. or larger so I think that's probably what's going on here cause back and forth okay it was called a cottage because that's what it originally was but once it became heated they assumed it was a year round habitation and as a consequence it became a dwelling the size didn't change. This is typical of what happens with a lot of non-conforming you know old properties out here, there's a mixed record about how they're understood to have existed so I just want to mention that for the record. What we're really looking at is well if the CO calls them legal dwellings at this point whether they qualify by state building code or not and the property card recognizes it as such then it's safe to say that our town records have already made a decision that needs and you're not talking about expanding them anyway so this is whether it's a non-conforming use, it is pre-existing non-conforming but that section of the Notice that June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting was cited about no enlargement doesn't really apply because you're not enlarging them. The habitable year round space was done many years ago and it was already apparently cited as such on the prior CO. MEMBER DANTES : Wait, was the screen porch conversion done in 1976 as well? JAMES MAYE : We believe so yes sometime between 1974 and 1976. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're intent here is simply to clear up the records entirely to make sure that everything that is on the property at the moment is legal and then this would allow you to go forward with rentals or whatever other (inaudible) or however you want to use them. JAMES MAYE : Correct MEMBER DANTES : When was this the deck was built in 1976 (inaudible) JAMES MAYE : I don't it's hard to know. We don't know when it was built. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie if I can ask two questions, question one is on both of the CO's that you mentioned it's described as 2N.C. summer cottages so I don't quite fully understand from the size standpoint as the Chairperson pointed out well first of all what the NC stands for. I was thinking non-conditioned. MEMBER DANTES : Non-conforming MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh you think Eric non-conforming? MEMBER DANTES : Yea MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So they're still in my mind's eye question about what is it despite what Leslie just said and I understand that things have altered over the years but I think that we need to fully CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think there's just a whole lot of inconsistency in the paperwork. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But they're still (inaudible) as cottages and then the other thing that I wanted to bring forward is on the application on Appendix B the applicant states that the lot size is .41 acres but the property card and the survey shows it as .25 acres. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting JAMES MAYE : There has been a mix up I believe with the property cards. I think around 2004 or somewhere around there they had reversed there's a vacant lot across the street and that is known as now as 875 Fleetwood and these two cottages currently sit on what is known as 910 Fleetwood and they basically reversed the property addresses for some unbeknownst reason but if you look at the tax map id and you look that up that would give you the correct square foot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but this is an application that you filled in not a town document and you indicate the lot sizes being .41 acres, the Short Environmental Assessment Form page one of four. JAMES MAYE : The survey should have the correct square footage of the lot, 11,954 sq. ft. If I indicated a .41 that's incorrect that's an honest mistake. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Very good, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to ask you about the septic system, what's there on the property are they all tied in to one septic? JAMES MAYE : There's one septic tank that we're aware of that's it's right they share it and it's right there in between the two buildings. Yeah right there ahuh. MEMBER DANTES : Let me also go back to the NC cause there's a housing code inspection form August 13, 1976 and the NC the Building Inspector does talk about the heat in the cottages and goes through the what was done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It seems to me probably most appropriate to refer to these as year round seasonal year round cottages rather than seasonal because of the size but it doesn't really matter what the designation is you're looking to simply legalize what's already been done. JAMES MAYE : Correct, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Rob oh he's recused I forgot. Pat do you have any questions on this? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Just you know the square footage thing is a little strange on the application but I got it. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they were cottages and once they became heated and the porch became habitable space then I guess they decided they were dwellings other than cottages but they weren't looking at what the state building code defines as a cottage as opposed to a dwelling. Everything was done basically with inspections, these were not done illegally where nobody found out about it you know thirty years later so there's a history of upgrading on the property it's just a matter of how to define it. If we define it as a cottage then the only way we get around that non pre-existing non-conforming uses to say they are not being enlarged therefore they are in compliance with that section of the code which was cited in the notice. Okay nothings easy, it's going to be one of those days I guess. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? NANCY SAWASTYNOWICZ : Good morning, Nancy Sawastynowicz Fleetwood Rd. Cutchogue. I have a letter for myself and then I have one for my husband who is a lawyer so bear with me when I read it cause I'm just a farmer. To the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, Trustees and to whom it may concern. This application is incomplete. It should not be considered until after it is completed. It is not clear from the contents of this application what was on the property prior to zoning and what was added recently that is now requested to be permitted. Applicant claims that the subject property is located in a neighborhood with similar structures and setbacks. Only one other property in the neighborhood has two houses and no evidence is presented to prove that that property is being used in a legal way. Two rental houses on a single small lot is not typical of Fleetwood Road's neighborhood character. Every property on the creek is connected by sharing an uncommonly valuable common natural resource. This property is one of the most environmentally sensitive and most overdeveloped properties in the neighborhood. The neighbors to the east are tenants. On the marshes to the west the neighbors are wild maritime plants and animals unable to represent their own interests. The undeveloped parcels to the west are parts of improved parcels on the landward side of Fleetwood Rd.*As the two cottages have been used as rentals, the driveways have been used for purposes other than parking. Vehicles have been parked on the side of and in Fleetwood Rd. At least one family that recently rented half of the subject property used the property immediately on the other side of Fleetwood for parking and boat storage. Is that property separate and buildable? In the questionnaire for filing with your ZBA application question H is partly answered in the affirmative but the answer was not completed. The application does not include any permit from the Trustees for the cottages which are the principal uses of the property. If the applications for the permits for the deck, shed and wall were missing information or contained false information regarding the principal uses the permits for the deck, shed and wall should be revoked. The subject application does not June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting include any permit for the bulkhead and the floating dock which were installed sometime within the past decade. The survey submitted dated 2005 does not show any bulkhead. Boards installed when the channel was dredged thru the salt marsh no longer exist. The boards that existed before the bulkhead was installed were only a few and they were rotted and broken. When the bulkhead was built there was nothing but air behind it. The Trustee permit for the shed states that it is specifically conditioned on establishment and maintenance of a 10' wide non turf buffer area along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Turf is the only thing planted and maintained right up to the bulkhead. If the cottages were winterized it may have been only very recently. When I knew the tenant living in the east cottage the utilities were not functioning. There was no water in the kitchen sink. In winter, space heaters were used to maintain livable air temperatures despite poor windows and doors. The crawl space under the east structure where the utility systems were located did not have a floor and was unsuitable for year round use. The Certificate of Occupancy dated 1974 was for two summer cottages. The Certificate dated 1976 is for two one family dwellings. Were the cottages occupied by separate families before zoning was established? Were the cottages occupied year round before zoning was established? Were the cottages used as rentals before zoning was established? If the variances are not granted will the cottages be approved for rental permits? There was only a single water service supplying both residences. Doesn't the town have a duty to determine how separate tenancies will be charged for water and gas supplied? The survey submitted dated 2005 does not show any solid waste disposal system. Do the cottages have separate cesspools? The application appears to be for an area variance for a corner of a deck extending only 15 inches past the required 10 ft. setback. The legal standard for an area variance is a balance of the real harm to the neighbors vs the real benefit to the property owner. The legal standard for an area variance is not to balance the benefit the property owner images. Removing the non-conforming corner of the deck would improve the property as well as.the neighborhood. The cottages may be the houses in the neighborhood closest to the creek and to the road. In contrast to the applicant's claim that the neighborhood would not be damaged by the requested variances reasonable people who inspect the property and the neighborhood would surely find that the property and the neighborhood would be improved if at least one of the cottages were removed or moved acrossthe road. This application requesting variances for as built alterations and expansions of non-conforming uses in unpermitted buildings should be denied. Granting it would be the first step towards future alterations and expansions. At least if any permit is granted it should be made absolutely clear that no future expansion will be allowed. If this variance is granted it should only be conditioned on compliance with enforceable land management standards. If such standards do not currently exist then the ZBA can create them. If Southold Town Board June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting has not properly considered the relative environmental impacts of seasonal use by a single family of owners vs year round use by multiple families of tenants Southold Town ZBA may have obligations to do so here. Thank you for your consideration and for your anticipated resolution in a manner that will protect the natural environment and will be fair to all property owners. Benja Schwartz and then this is mine, Nancy Sawastynowicz, dear Board of Appeals, hello please deny the request for application 7626 for permits for non-conforming uses in unpermitted buildings at 910 Fleetwood Rd. Cutchogue. The whole application is erroneous and is detrimental to East Creek. It has been a year round rental for years and I've lived on Fleetwood Rd. for twenty years and know for a fact it has been a year round rental in both cottages. My friend rented there for a number of years and the tide frequently would go under the cottage and cause mold everywhere inside and out. When you walk by the cottages you smell a strong odor of septic which I'm sure is seeping harmful bacteria into the creek. This problem needs to be addressed. The creek has been abused on this property for years. For the property owners to build a bulkhead recently with without a permit, put a shed up without a permit, build a deck and a wall without a permit shows the lack of respect for our town and it should be stopped. East Creek or Eugenes Creek has been closed'for shell fishing for years. After calling the DEC Law Enforcement to find out about the closure I was informed septic bacteria is the big problem. Please deny any use on a % acre lot. Does the property have legal rental permits? To such overbuilding without permits on a % of an acre-is outrageous. Please deny any permits alterations and expansions of a non-conforming use on this lot. If the ZBA grants this application it will set a bad example for future non-conforming permits to future pollution of our delicate water ways.Thank you very much Nancy Sawastynowicz. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you submit those to us please. NANCY SAWASTYNOWICZ : I have a picture of all those cars and you know where they park by the road. That was from Google Earth. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Mr. Maye did you want to,make a response to what you just heard? JAMES MAYE : Yes, I mean a lot of the history of the place was done by previous ownership so what Jen's aunt did in the past is I can't really defend we weren't owners at the time. We're just trying to move forward with the paperwork and do the right thing as new property owners and you know I can understand some of the complaints about the property but there is no intentions to build or expand or do anything.,We want to keep it the way it is and we're just trying to get Board approval to prove you know what's currently been done and it's been June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting around for fifty years so I have a difficult time trying to understand some of the comments about the character cause it's been there for so long it's part of the neighborhood and you know we are just trying to do this so we can get the year round rental permits. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Did you want to go ahead and say something? MARY CURLY : Hi my name is Mary Curly and I am a resident of Southold. I moved out to Southold because of COVID but I was previously a tenant at 875 Fleetwood Rd. for I'm a little blurry because my"things are in storage but I believe it was 2005 until sometime around maybe 2018, '17. MEMBER DANTES : Are you next door to this property or MARY CURLY : Yes there are two cottages and I believe that they are missing I get five minutes MEMBER DANTES : Where is 875? MARY CURLY : 875 is one of the cottages with the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay the one with the deck. MARY CURLY : Just for the record I have left my heart in Cutchogue I loved living there. I also I wish that you guys were here because I heard I was friends with your aunt, I thought she was a lovely woman. She and I hit it off immediately. I didn't actually look at the cottage, originally I looked at it with my sister in law and I had to leave for my father was terminal in Ohio so I needed a storage space and called this woman and it was the best gift I've ever given myself. Six months later I came back and lived in a place that I had zero desire to live in. Hold on I get emotional a little bit but the cottage used to belong I'll tell you what I know about the cottage and I can provide documentation about any of this if anybody needs to know these facts I know what they are in my storage. The cottage at one time belonged to Walter Matthau he used to come and it was his fishing shack when he had time off. He didn't socialize with the adults in the neighborhood he socialized with kids, the kids would come over he'd make hot dogs for there. It was sincerely it was a shack it was a real shack. I didn't know this, when I moved in I had great hopes she said that she would one day sell it to me down the road. I put money into it, I experimented I got rid of my designer clothes, I moved out here because I was ill by the way to the North Fork. So in this Cutchogue house with your aunt who was just a unique woman very strong and she thought that I was bees knees, she wanted to watch me thrive. I would do weird things like make a sculpture, I would have paint on my clothes and she would come over and look how great you are. She was a great woman. She shared with June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting me that she bought these cottages it was her first purchase. Her family came from a long line of owning property around town and her father she I don't need to talk about her father but her so these cottages she bought because her father called her when she was I believe maybe in Florida, she named the cottages. Originally my cottage was called the Free Spirit and the other one was it started with an N and it was named after the wind and she did all the work herself. She did the tar every year, she dug out the basement she did all of these things that were Like major no woman does. It was a floating dock when, I got there, it was sunk into the muck. At any rate I was able to live there off of my savings and in this place I learned about nature, I stalked the neighbor cause I saw her garden and I wanted to know how she did that. She's taught me so much she's a native of here but she taught me how not to be a city person and come out and do things that I didn't know was hurting the community. She I mean she taught me everything I wanted to know about art and she's a phenomenal woman to discover here. I had discovered a lot of phenomenal people in Cutchogue mostly seniors people I have lost. The neighborhood I used to come (inaudible) all the time and learn about and be part of it and I have to say I don't (inaudible) I really didn't see much getting done. All of the people that would come down and requesting the dark skies were great the only thing that I'm proud of that I said in the microphone and I'll say it still is thank you to the Millers who donated land in Southold Town all the woods because those will be preserved forever. Your cottage that you're claiming is a seasonal rental has not been rented to my knowledge as a seasonal rental since the man that lived there before me lived there at least te,n years, his name is David he used to circle my house I caught him stalking my house he wanted back in. Before that there was another young woman if you need any real records Lorraine was known for renting primarily to anybody on Section 8 she was one of the few people out here that did do that, she was a God sent to them. She used the same handyman, the same I can provide any of these things you guys might have questions for the same businesses she was quite well known. The deck that's on 875 was just put in when I went to look at it and that was partially what I chose that cottage as opposed to the other one. At about two or three months after I came back from Ohio your aunt said, oh how would you feel if I had to tear down the deck and I said if you have to tear down the deck I'm going to need like a fence because there were kids next door and within a couple of days she came down and noticed something that takes places actually used to take place it's not the same faces anymore it�was taken care of in a different way and lots of things used to happen like that in this town. Now that I'm here and I'm not moving I'm going to be part of the solution. I love it here, I hope that the people that are listening to this really just save what we have, save it. I love people coming out, everybody should have access to the water but people that live here and people that take care of the June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting birds and other things that make it special we deserve not to have traffic we deserve not to have our water ruined. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I appreciate your sentiments but we're going to have to move on you need to address just the application. MARY CURLY : Sorry about that. My name is Mary Curly if you need any documentation that I can provide I will. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much. I'm going to ask Mr. Maye, do you have Health Department approvals, certification for those cottages we'll call them? I don't know that I saw that. Also Trustees approval you said you got approval for the deck? I think there is a Trustees certification in here. I just want to make sure MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) is what I'm kind of wondering the Health Department just started doing septic systems. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I just want to make sure we have what we need in our file, 2016 Trustees. MEMBER DANTES : I.have everything I think I need to close it. BOARD SECRETARY Leslie I have a question. Is there bulkheads on the property? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a very small bulkhead. BOARD SECRETARY : Does it show on the survey? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see I'll have a look. The survey (inaudible) BOARD SECRETARY : Yeah it's a 2005 1 guess the bulkhead was put in afterwards. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that survey predates the bulkhead.. BOARD SECRETARY : Should we get it updated or? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we need to. However is there do you have the Trustees there handy? Does it indicate a non-turf buffer? It indicates on this approval from 2016 a 10 foot wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead. So it's easy enough to accomplish. Mr. Maye do you understand what that requirement is? JAMES MAYE : Can you repeat it please. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, we just checked the approval by the Trustees we have a copy of it I think it was an administrative. They indicated that you would be required to install a 10 foot wide non-turf buffer along the bulkhead. Right now it's just grass going all the way up to it, what that means is from the bulkhead landward 10 feet you need to plant something other than grass. It can be gravel, it can be native drought tolerant plantings like Rosa Ragusa or Fescue but something that does not require an irrigation system. JAMES MAYE : Okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody else on Zoom who wants to address this? Anyone else in the audience if not I'd like to move on. Hold on if you want to speak you have to come back to the microphone. MARY CURLY : The septic tank is in the back yard of the house next door to me. What's in between the houses that they share is the water system which was illegal also by the way according to the water company but the septic system itself that got cleaned up is closer than 10 feet to the water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well given its proximity to the wetlands it may be prudent to actually check with Health Department to see whether or not an updated system should be installed for the continued use of that property. The IA systems that are available now can be installed they'd have to probably be between the two because you don't really have a.rear yard there's just no room it's a very small property. They may not, given its history require anything other than an inspection to make sure that it's functioning properly. So we'll have to see how that works, we'll check. MEMBER DANTES : Usually it's for like substantial renovations they'll require but if you're not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I know but this is MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're only they're not changing anything so this would not trigger Health Department inspection in and of itself because you're not expanding the use and so on but if it's an old system and it's been used continuously year round as opposed to a seasonal then you need to check on whether or not it needs to be pumped out, whether or not it's leaking I just want to make sure for sustained future use of these as year round that there's not going to be any adverse impact to the very fragile wetlands that are around there. You don't want anything you know that's going to contribute to pollution going on. Okay June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting anything from the Board? Rob probably had a long nap by now. Alright I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT :,Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We should have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting which is June 16tH HEARING#7628—EMMANUEL and BARBARA CARAVANOS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Emmanuel and Barbara Caravanos #7628. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 16, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions to a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 3575 Stars Rd in East Marion. Hi would you state your name please. DOUG MCGAHAN : Good morning, my name is Doug McGahan. It is still morning isn't it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For about another hour or so. So this is a rear yard setback at 37.6 feet where the code required a minimum of 50 feet. DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes the Caravanos's carefully planned this extension to their home with the designer including furniture layout and the number of people they have in their family which has since then grown and realize that after you put everything in the room with the family size they have this is about the minimum size extension they needed to have a group gathering for the holidays and,during the summer months when all the family is around. Their June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting property is 20,400 sq. ft. and if it was 400 sq. ft. less this extension would have been within the limits of the setbacks by several feet but for that small increase of 400 feet over the limit it goes from 35 foot setback to 50 feet setback whereas their setback is proposed to be 37.5. We feel that the addition adequately sized for the lot and there is proper room to get around behind all of the with the extension there. There's a large shrubbery in the back of the property so it does appear to be less of a yard than it actually is which is a nice buffer for the neighbors the shrubbery behind on the backside of the lot. We feel that is encroachment to a 50 foot rear yard setback is a bit over stated I guess because really if it was only 400 sq. ft. less the line would have been well within the needs of the setback requirements. We're asking for your consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well as you probably know we've all inspected the property and seen that there's a lot of densely planted landscaping with mature vegetation no one is going to see any of that. Question, there's a shed in the what was the upper left hand corner that's not on the survey I want to make sure that it's in a conforming it isn't rear yard so it's not the location but we just want to make sure that the setbacks are I think it needs just a site plan. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) condition that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can do that we can easily do that.The shed is not on the survey but it's on the property so it was obviously added after the survey. It's not going to affect the lot coverage in any non-conforming way but we like to have everything on there. I just want to make sure it is in a conforming rear yard but it's a smaller shed it's not huge or anything just want to make sure it's got the proper setbacks from the property lines. It probably only has to be like five feet maximum. MEMBER DANTES : We can condition it and probably figure it out later. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Caravanos when was the shed put in place? Please come up to the mic and state your name. EMMANUEL CARAVANOS : Emmanuel Caravanos the owner. You were saying that the shed is part of the property? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's on your property. EMMANUEL CARAVANOS : Well there's two properties, there's two separate tax bills that little extension is part of another piece of property it's not on the actual property that's why June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting it's not included in the survey. They only surveyed that particular lot. There's a 50 by 175 foot adjoining piece of property and that's where the shed is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's not on your property? MEMBER DANTES : He owns both. EMMANUEL CARAVANOS : I own both so I think that's why it wasn't on the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I gottcha cause it looks like the house might then be straddling the property lines. Are you saying that this is two lots? BOARD SECRETARY : No his lot is here. MEMBER LEHNERT : The surveyor did show the other lot that he owns. MEMBER DANTES : He owns both neighboring lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay but that's undeveloped then right that lot? EMMANUEL CARAVANOS : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then probably the shed should be moved to the lot that has your house on it because the law does not allow an accessory structure to be located on a property that doesn't have a principal dwelling on it because it's an accessory to something, it's an accessory to your house basically. So if a lot say you want to put up deer fencing and you're not a farmer on an empty lot you can't do that it's an accessory. You can't put a shed on an empty lot. EMMANUEL CARAVANOS : I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So all you got to do it's easy just pick it up and put it in your backyard. BOARD SECRETARY : Is that what says the concrete block garage? MEMBER DANTES : No it's the one on the other side. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah to.the south. MEMBE DANTES : The concrete block CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's legal. June 2,2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie -since we're on that topic that was something I wanted to inquire about because I noticed that the ownership for three properties in a row were identical so since you're speaking of this the smaller lot the one to the north I'm wondering, has that merged with his property? I know we're off topic or I'm bringing something new into it but I just want to discuss that or have you discussed that,the other side the north? MEMBER DANTES :The north wouldn't Nick cause it's got a structure on it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No the smaller one is I'm reading my notes backwards I'm sorry, I have (inaudible)the lot to the north is the vacant one. MEMBER DANTES : Concrete block garage according to the survey so the structure would make it so it doesn't merge. EMMANUEL CARAVANOS : There's 3575 is my house, adjacent to the house is another house 3675 and that has a garage and that's a different house altogether I own that house. The one on the opposite side is 3475 that's that small piece of lot where the shed is. Now this came up a few years ago can I conjoin it and make it one unified lot? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can. EMMANUEL CARAVANOS : I said well is there an advantage/disadvantage I had no clue so I pay two separate tax bills but it would be easier just to pay one. MEMBER DANTES : To answer your question, the problem with merging by zoning but then to get the merged tax bills then you have to get a letter of(inaudible). EMMANUEL CARAVANOS : Right but I didn't know if it was worth all that effort or not. I acquired that piece many years ago because the County of Suffolk it was an untaxed piece of property that was bid and I won the bid and acquired that pieced of land. MEMBER DANTES :Technically he doesn't have to move the shed if it merged by zoning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, go to the Assessor's Office right over there and you can inquire you can it probably by force of law was merged and the Building Department would have to do because it's in the same name. What was it 1984 when the merger law did you own both properties then? EMMANUEL CARAVANOS : Yes June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay it's probably merged in which case you can leave it right where it is and if you want one tax map number to be certain you can voluntarily merge them. You can go to the Assessors and say I own them both, I just want one bill and I want to leave my shed where it is and you can voluntarily merge it. EMMANUEL CARAVANOS : When I bought when I won the bid on that piece I was told that it's too small to build a house on it okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see, well then you really should merge them because there's no you're just saying that if you ever want to sell the lot MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we condition this on the proof of merger and that would make it go away? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure MEMBER DANTES : I don't know why the surveyor didn't MEMBER LEHNERT : Well the surveyor is just doing tax lots. EMMANUEL CARAVANOS : Exactly he just did that tax lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would check with the Building Department and check with the Assessors and if in fact they're merged or you want them to be merged you can leave the shed just where it is. You should eventually just get one bill. MEMBER DANTES : How many square feet is the 3475? EMMANUEL CARAVANOS : The property? It's 50 X 175 it goes all the way to the back it matches the same dimensions as its 50 feet wide CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's really small. EMMANUEL CARAVANOS : It's very narrow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is to your benefit to just close that up. PAT MOORE : I just want to interject some information. Pat Moore sorry hi. I just want the Board to be aware something because it's happening to a client of mine on Jockey Creek right now. An intentional merger where they took a property and combined it, when the client went to get updated sanitary for IA to upgrade the sanitary system, the Health Department 24 June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting said it was a subdivision without Health Department approval because the original lot didn't match the tax map from 1981 so while it's a great idea in theory keeping them separate might avoid a terrible having to process with the Health Department a subdivision application so you can accomplish it with a condition like you have in the past where as long as the two properties are treated as one pieced because they technically merge, if he goes to the Assessor and gets one tax bill and the county issues a new number in combining the two he's going to get all screwed up with the Health Department if he ever tried to upgrade the sanitary or adds a bedroom whatever. I'm just letting you know this is how the Health Department is treating it. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : We can leave it up to him. We can advise him as to what he'd like to do and leave it up to the applicant as to how he wants to execute it with respect to the structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's easy. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : Since there are particular legal ramifications. DOUG MCGAHAN : Just take 400 feet from his property and add to the other property we wouldn't even be here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. You can do a lot line change let's not get carried away here. Alright anybody else wanting to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Okay we'll have a decision in two weeks. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING#7629—KEITH HUGHES and ELLEN HUGHES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before is for Keith Hughes and Ellen Hughes #7629. This is a request for a variance from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's December 14, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a dormer addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet located at 1325 Broadwaters Rd. in Cutchogue. State your name please. KEITH HUGHES : Keith Hughes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is confusing, the Notice of Disapproval says a minimum side yard setback of 43.2, 1 think it's a front yard setback MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah that's a typo it's a front yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a typo alright I just want to make sure that that was in the record. MEMBER DANTES : This is an existing dormer a dormer over an existing house that already has a 35 foot setback? KEITH HUGHES : Yes it's an existing house yes it's a matching dormer. MEMBER DANTES : The front yard setback is not changing? KEITH HUGHES : Correct MEMBER DANTES : I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So is this supposed to be a front yard setback of 43.2 feet where the code requires a minimum of 50? KEITH HUGHES : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Double checking. MEMBER DANTES : A front yard setback is 35 (inaudible) more conforming than the existing setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is for storage on your second floor? June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting KEITH HUGHES : Storage and lighting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Storage and lighting. I think it's built already isn't it? I mean when I went out there it looked like it was completed. KEITH HUGHES : We did the side all the back work in that the only thing we haven't done is the matching dormer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay. Alright well it's very hard to tell your side or your front the front property line we have no clue where your side yard is it's just the whole thing is kind of runs onto the neighbors. Anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric said no, anything from you Nick? MEMBER DANTES : You said storage for the dormer it's still going to be finished space it's going to be heated and cooled right? KEITH HUGHES : Yeah it's actually it's an open platform so we use it as storage or sitting but you know it opens up into a hallway and the bathroom has now been moved to the back. MEMBER DANTES : But technically it is living space (inaudible) KEITH HUGHES : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I had no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Nick, Rob do you have anything? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? DOUG MCGAHAN : I'm Doug McGahan I'm a contractor renovating the second floor and this dormer was originally intended to be part of that renovation but learning that it's too close to the road which surprised me if you look at the house now it has one of those what we call dog house dormer on the right side as you're looking at the front of the house and what he has proposed is to put a matching dormer on the left side of the house which I mean I look at the house and it appears that something is missing when you look at it cause usually there's two of those. The area of the proposed dormer is an elevated the platform is elevated cause June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting there's existing structural steel in the house we had to build over and we made this'so you can . have storage or grandkids could play board games up there whatever else. This dormer was simply to provide natural light and that's about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you Doug, anyone else? Alright I'm going to make a. motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye, okay we'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7633—STELLA MALLAS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Stella Mallas #7633. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 15, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish and construct a single family dwelling, construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool, construct an accessory garage and legalize an "as built" accessory coop at 1) dwelling located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 2) accessory garage located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 3) swimming pool located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 4) coop located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 5) coop located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 420 Summit Drive in Mattituck. Is someone here to represent the application? So it's a demolition and reconstruction of a single family dwelling based on a code technical definition. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes I was going to address that right out of the gate here. To be clear we don't view it as a demolition CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's mostly interior walls. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes but I followed up with Amanda on that and they're looking at it as CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Strictly by percentage. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Because of the extent of the work being done. So I don't think it hurts to call it a demo for your purposes but Amanda said if you guys want to change that and not call it a demo you can do whatever you want so here we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We got your memorandum of law by the way. MARTIN FINNEGAN : You did get it okay so this is a property up in Captain Kidd Estates where the applicant is seeking to renovate the home by finishing off the existing garage space and it is as I said not a demo it's substantial alterations interior alterations of the house. The house itself as you see from the survey and the plans there's this unusually T-shaped house and half the reason we're here for the accessory variances is just because of that. If you look at the survey and you can see that the proposed garage and pool you know are essentially in the back yard of this house but because of this T we're here for relief. Both of those structures are in a conforming location to setbacks so that's the need for the relief for those two structures. Other than that we're asking for a rear yard setback because of the existing non-conforming footprint of the house to allow the renovation to proceed. It is substantially the only there's small area on the back corner of the house that is going to be improved with a screened in porch and that's the only new construction associated with the house itself other than the open front porch area which is still conforming to the setbacks. That's really it, I mean we're looking to just bless the existing footprint of the house to allow the renovation. Lastly we have our chicken coop which has been in the back corner of the property for a long time and for whatever reason it's considered a structure and we are seeking a variance to allow that to remain. My understanding is the neighbors enjoy the eggs that my clients share with them. Anyway just a few other points, the point of this the garage space is proposed there's a two car garage with some storage space. This house is built on slab, there's no storage whatsoever so part of the intent of this renovation is to create some needed storage as well as space for my clients family for their children and grandchildren who they would like to have visit them. So that's basically the extent of the project and the relief we're talking about, side yard variances for the structures even though they're in the rear yard and the setback relief for the June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting 19.8 feet. Just to address the criteria very briefly I've covered them in my memo, this is Captain Kidd Estates we're talking about all substandard lots that are improved with accessory structures, many pools. I've attached some prior decisions, there is you know a history of relief being granted for putting accessory structures in other than the rear yard. Some of those properties have two front yards for different reasons but you know placing this pool where it is I think is about the best location for it. The front yard of this property is sloped, there's really nowhere to go here other than this area. I'm sure you've seen the property what it is, it's definitely screened around its.rear area so most obviously the garage would be visible from the street but most of these improvements are not going to be visible from the neighboring properties. So we don't believe there's any detrimental impact to nearby properties in fact I believe we've submitted a couple of letters of support from neighbors, we're not aware of any opposition. Obviously we can't accomplish this without variance relief. The footprint is pre-existing non-conforming, the side yard variance is (inaudible) as stated because of that T-shape of,the home so the substantiality again I would argue is not practically substantial in light of the configuration of the existing footprint slope of the property and all of these improvements are well within the allowable lot coverage. So there's no evidence of any negative adverse impact on the neighborhood or district as I mentioned, there's been prior variance relief granted there. The property right next door has an 11 foot setback variance to allow structures to remain there and of course to the extent it's self-created we would suggest that shouldn't have an impact on your decision. So if there are any questions I'm happy to address them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : One quick question, just for the record is there anywhere on the lot you can put the chicken coop to be more conforming? I know there's retaining walls side of a mountain MARTIN FINNEGAN : Not really I mean there's really other than by the pool you know there's simply no appropriate place for it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see do you have any questions Pat or Eric? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I don't have a question, I would just make a suggestion that they could put the pool equipment in the garage. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Rather than you know building something more cause I know that's a tight spot and the applicant was concerned about that area. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yeah, actually more recently having studied this my client you know said I really want to push the garage back and well you know I didn't want to start over the clock here with you guys so I said look let's just do it and if you really, really want to do that we'll come back and visit you again. I don't believe I'm in a position right now to amend this on the fly but that would obviously necessitate another variance to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the setback. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It makes sense I wish he would have done it I don't think it would have been a big deal to push it back but (inaudible) it would have made but we'll have to save that for another day. MEMBER DANTES : What's the rear yard setback for accessory structure? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Depending on the height I believe they would be 15 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's conforming now. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's conforming now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they push it back farther based on the size it's probably going to require a variance. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah cause he has to remove that shed. MARTIN FINNEGAN :That's going. MEMBER ACAMPORA : He was concerned he says maybe I should you know just go back and think about this and you know I said your choice of what you want to do. It's an interesting piece of property. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It is, it is and the whole neighborhood MEMBER ACAMPORA : You can jump off the chicken coop into the neighbor's house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And land on the roof. That whole area is like that, there's land, bluffs you know all throughout it's a complicated place to try and build stuff sometimes. You need a team of mules to get you out of the driveways in that neighborhood. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) on paper but real life (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and as you said if it weren't for that wing sticking out of the back of the house they'd be in a conforming rear yard. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Exactly MARTIN FINNEGAN : I mean that shed is almost on the property line right now so pushing the garage back really would not it's (inaudible) larger structure but I don't think we have (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anyone in the audience? Anybody on Zoom Liz? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7635—STEVE and FORTUNE MANDARO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Steve and Fortune Mandaro #7635. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-123, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 20, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a covered porch and screened in porch addition to an existing seasonal cottage at 1) a non-conforming building containing a non-conforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered or moved unless the use of such building is changed to a conforming use, 2) located less than the code required minimum primary front yard setback of 35 feet, 3) located less than the code required minimum side June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting yard setback of 10 feet, 4) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 5) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 2370 Bay Ave. (adj. to Gardners Bay) in East Marion. Let's take a look at the various variances that are required first of all. So we're looking at building a porch and screened in porch on top of an existing deck and a seasonal cottage. One is a primary front yard setback at 16.1 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35.Two a side yard setback of 4 feet where the code requires a minimum of 10. Three a rear yard setback of 30.8 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet, 24.6% proposed lot coverage where the code permits a maximum of 20% and five an expansion of a non-conforming building with a non-conforming use. We do have LWRP which indicates that it's inconsistent because of pretty much in a FEMA AE flood zone and the structures should be minimized and excessive lot coverage is not supported by the LWRP. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Thank you for going through that one more time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do it faster for a reason because I don't want to keep everybody else waiting. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So I did bring eight copies of a revised drawing because our site plan actually indicated it to be a proposed enclosed porch not screened. I've revised it on the floor plans and I wanted to give you guys that submit that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Okay good. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So one (inaudible) mentioned about the so you have the existing deck has a C of 0 the buildings all have C of O's. The idea here is to get an open covered area and then this enclosed area really to just get out of the way of the flies and to have a place outside. It's not conditioned space it's basically going to be just like an outdoor sort of enclosed space that is on top of the deck so we're not pouring a foundation CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then you're not proposing conditioned no heat ANTHONY PORTILLO : No ma'am and we're not going to rebuild the deck I've already reviewed it, it's structurally sound and can support what we're planning on doing here. I just want to mention that you know this street if you guys know this area there's a lot of smaller lots on it. I did find other requests for lot coverage that were approved on the street. I did bring one just that I can put into the record as well. That was 2400 Bay Ave. they requested a 76% lot coverage they did receive relief on it for an array of things I just wanted to mention that and there were other ones as well. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2400 Bay Ave. what's the decision number? ANTHONY PORTILLO : 5540 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They wanted 76% lot coverage? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah it was approved 76% CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was approved? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What year was that? ANTHONY PORTILLO : 2004 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2004, was I asleep? ANTHONY PORTILLO : They had a lot of requests decks and things like that. I mean in all actuality we're not asking to increase lot coverage this is already existing the deck is there so lot coverage is existing. We're not increasing any existing non-conformances I mean I understand it's a seasonal cottage but this is not a living space. Entering into the enclosure is from the covered porch area so it's not directly from the house so we're asking for Your consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a very interesting lot you go right up to the beach in a complete L-shape. ANTHONY PORTILLO : One thing to mention too Board is we have a CEHA line on here so that actually does reduce our lot which creates a larger lot coverage. If we didn't have the CEHA we'd be right about 20%. We did receive DEC approval and honestly our next step is to get Trustees once the Board makes their decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're not really doing anything on the water's edge but because of its location it still comes within the 100 foot setback jurisdiction of Trustees. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I heard Anthony mention that he has DEC approval, I didn't see that in my packet. If we could have a copy of that. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We can relay that to your office. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you MEMBER ACAMPORA : I was just saying do they need the two sheds? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Did Anthony submit that decision the ZBA decision? That wasn't approved for approved for the lot coverage it was denied. It was granted setbacks only. Do you have the decision there? BOARD SECRETARY : I don't have the decision. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No it was just a copy. BOARD SECRETARY : We will look it up and give it to the Board. ANTHONY PORTILLO :,I did provide other ones I mean I think they're very, very small lots. MEMBER ACAMPORA : We've done a couple over there on Bay Ave. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Pat's question was, there's two existing sheds there if they were removed it would reduce your lot coverage. Are those considered essential by the homeowner? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The applicant would like to keep them but we did actually talk about that if that was something the Board wanted us to do I mean he would be willing to remove them.The owner is actually here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it would depend from my point of view it would depend entirely upon how much it would reduce the lot coverage if they're really little sometimes ANTHONY PORTILLO : They're 45 sq.ft. each they're 90 in total. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So about 1%? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But Leslie they're also straddling the property line, they need to be pulled back. Don't they have to meet setback? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They should. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's not a problem we can bring them up so that they're five foot off that rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to speak? June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting STEVE MANDARO : Good morning my name is Steve Mandaro I'm the owner of the property. The property has two houses on it both have CO's. The second house is owned by my cousin. One of the sheds is hers I would not be able to move one of them. If we get rid of mine or move it but we couldn't say that I can get rid of both of them. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay both what we would to (inaudible) compliance obviously we don't want to be in non-compliance so we'd have to move them to five feet off the property line. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm confused, what did the applicant just say about ownership, there's a separate owner? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a second house on the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh I'm aware of that I thought it was the same owner. STEVE MANDARO : I own I Steve Mandaro and Fortune Mandaro my wife own the whole property with my aunt Catherine actually my aunt my cousins now are there but my aunt Catherine owns the property with us. It was a family estate since the 1960's. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so your cousins then are occupying STEVE MANDARO : They occupy the other house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The one and that's their shed. STEVE MANDARO : Correct they're small sheds. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But regardless on behalf of the applicant who is your cousin and your aunt, you're the owner with your cousin and your aunt so what happens in this hearing in my opinion may impact them. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct ANTHONY PORTILLO, : I think as suggested we'd like to keep the sheds because that's where they put MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I heard that but I was taken back when he said that there's other owners (inaudible) of the application. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I would say that obviously moving it 5 feet away if we can keep the sheds that's really our ideal scenario. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you think there would be some objection from your cousin I mean if you co-own the property and the Board of Appeals has said you can go ahead and do your renovations you're going to have to bring those two sheds into conformity by just moving them away from the property line is that a problem? STEVE MANDARO : I don't think that's a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's all Nick was saying. I mean they're small people always need storage especially if you're on the water you got all kinds of junk that you usually want to put inside a shed so that it's easy to access you know. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on Zoom? Just for the record though we did receive a letter of objection from a neighbor so I just want to put that into the record. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I can add one other comment, the prior relief that was issued in 1981 under Appeal #2920 clearly states that the granted relief is subject to the following condition, number one and there were a couple but number one is the pertinent one, in the event the applicant or subsequent owners proposed to convert the existing buildings to year round use prior written approval of the Board must be received so I just want to remind everyone that these are seasonal residences and not year round permanent homes. ANTHONY PORTILLO : And just to be clear on this too, they are used seasonally by the owner, they do not occupy them year round. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood MEMBER DANTES : It's weird though cause the CO's they have one as a dwelling and the other one is seasonal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here we go again. MEMBER DANTES : But this one it looks like that front house was legally does the front house have heat? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No MEMBER DANTES : So one of the CO's is wrong. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN What else is new. People come before this Board and then we discover all of the inconsistencies erroneous missing paperwork. STEVE MANDARO : May I just ask one question? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure STEVE MANDARO : Which house show as a dwelling? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one you're in. MEMBER DANTES : No the one he's in I thought it was the other one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh well let me look back on the survey. STEVE MANDARO : The one that backs up to Huckleberry Hill is mine which is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought it was his. MEMBER DANTES : The two story one is CO'd as a dwelling, is that accurate, does it have heat? STEVE MANDARO : No it's closed up in October till May. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually since you mentioned dates, in prior variance relief where we've granted for seasonal cottages we actually included dates about seasonality I don't know if that's an appropriate conversation here or not but the applicant did state that they do close it October thru I think you just said May. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I don't think that we have the authority to determine what constitutes a season. I think that's exceeding our jurisdiction. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think it's not being heated is really what CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When it gets cold you leave that's the season. How are you supposed to define seasons anyway nowadays, every time you turn around it's too hot it's too cold it's up it's down one day it's 90 one day it's 60. Okay anything from anybody else? MEMBER LEHNERT: No questions. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No June 2,2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7638—KARIBU LLC/PASCAL SCHAARY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Karibu LLC/Pascal Schaary #7638. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's December 9, 2021 Amended January 19, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory storage shed, construct an accessory hot tub (Jacuzzi) and to legalize the conversion of a storage shed into a pool house at 1) hot tub located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) storage shed/pool house located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 3) In addition the applicant seeks to lift the ZBA Condition (File No. 3902) that states that the existing storage shed can only be used for storage purposes and only have electricity located at 90 Kimberly Lane in Southold. So this is an accessory shed and Jacuzzi in a side yard instead of the code required rear yard and the to legalize the conversion of that existing storage shed for a pool house/cabana. It looks like there's a septic system. You know what, I couldn't actually get into the property I looked at it from outside the back yard. I think there was a very upset dog. PASCAL SCHAARY : We don't have a dog.There's a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Oh you know what I got in I'm confused that's right it's another pool in the back yard. Nope I'm glad that .your non-existent dog was not barking at me. The June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting one thing I did notice, that shed is you're proposing the Jacuzzi and the pool house or are they already built? PAT MOORE : Well okay are we ready to start? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, yeah. PAT MOORE : Thank you, Patricia Moore and I have my client here as'well so if we have to answer any specific questions. We have a building permit for the screened porch, the Jacuzzi has not been built. The pool house has not been built it's a shed but we want to convert it to a pool house and when they went in for a building permit because of the previous Zoning Board decision they would have to come back and jus either amend that decision or modify it or however you wish to treat it. At this point so let's say one structure at a time cause each one has its own unique features. Let me start with the simplest one is the Jacuzzi because that's just a technical variance cause clearly the Jacuzzi is in the back yard by the back door by the back deck but because of the screen porch it places it in technically the side yard. The other structure which is the larger shed that is adjacent to Pine Neck Rd. the northerly that one yes that is again a technical variance because we meet all of the setback requirements however because it is to the side of the existing house on the other side of the garage it needs a variance for its placement there again in the side yard. That shed is purely storage shed he needs typical family with lots of kids and there is a lot of toys a lot of beach paraphernalia stuff endless stuff and there is a need for storage. It was proposed there one it's very hidden, Pine Neck Rd. as you remember this is Paradise by the Bay Subdivision sort of its own little enclave subdivision it's been there for a very long time. There is very mature shrubbery, there is a surrounding buffer area that was created when the subdivision was approved and there are lots of variances issued before the code was changed because this was considered having three front yards. Fortunately the code has now changed so that those issues are no longer relevant and so all the variances that have been granted over the years really don't apply anymore. I did find one variance that might be closest, it was the Cornacchia appeal #3909 back from 1990 it was an accessory building in the front yard. It was located 12 feet from Kimberly Lane and a corner 24 feet from the property line very close to the front again that's a storage structure. It was actually again before the code changed allowing accessory structures in the front yard but it's placement is much closer to the property line than the code even requires today. So you're allowed to put accessory structures in the front yard. So all these cases that are of all of the properties in this subdivision are almost but not quite on target because the code has changed over the years. In any case this proposed storage shed you can see it's next to the driveway so in particular when the kids and the family take their water June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting sports and the vessels little vessels and so on out of this proposed storage shed they're going to use the driveway and go out to Kimberly Lane and access the beach which is the beach access for this subdivision. So its placement there was specific to the family to try to make it accessible, put everything in storage so it's not outside. Ultimately the size is to accommodate two small electric jet skis so to be able to put them side by side. So dimensions were taken to accommodate that again all the water sports that is applicable to the family and to anybody having a home in Southold by the water. Now we get to the existing shed which when the variance was granted back in I think it was 1990 the code did not and would have treated this property again as having three front yards and that's why it went for the variance. The conditions of the variance was as a storage shed. They have since put in a pool, it would be a permitted use it would be permitted in its location but because of the decision with a condition the Zoning Board required us to come in and ask for this relief. Interesting thing is if the shed was picked up and moved I don't know that your variance would be applicable anymore. I never understood the'zoning when there's a change to the code that the Building Department makes us come back for permitted uses when there's been a condition because it's somewhat moot since the legislation has no longer made it a requirement to have that variance but nevertheless that's not the first time I come before this Board to try and amend a condition that's been put on a variance that no longer would be required. We can talk about the inside of the shed or the pool house because that was something my client and I talked about it and I said I don't know you know I know about what the pool code says the pool house definition is, we needed size we needed requirements of the half bath and just two rooms the changing room and the half bath but I don't know and I'm sure it's the elephant in the room is whether a spa is a permitted or not permitted part of a pool house. I don't know. MEMBER DANTES : Define spa. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a sauna. PAT MOORE : Yeah it's like a heat a heating you just go in when you hot flashes you live with a spa everyday so I would die in a spa but a young person loves a spa. So he just goes in there and it heats up the space and it's relaxing. MEMBER DANTES : So it's like an electric insert, you put it in the pool house? PAT MOORE : Come on up and put it on the record because I don't know how one is built. PASCAL SCHAARY : My name is Pascal Schaary I'm the owner thank you for hearing us. It's a just heat sauna that you go in and I believe it heats through electricity (inaudible) how it June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting works it's a company that builds these on Long Island and it's very my wife has like (inaudible) it just helps to relax. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this a wet or a dry sauna? In other words it heats up but sometimes you use rocks that you pour water on for steaming, is it steam created or just dry heat? PASCAL SCHAARY We've not decided again looking at what the rules say and what is available we (inaudible) also hearing what the feedback is. MEMBER DANTES : What she's asking is it doesn't have a shower feature basically. PAT MOORE Oh no, no shower feature that I did know. That's why I was like it's not a shower it's like a closet that gets hot so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're usually lined with wood. PAT MOORE : Yes MEMBER LEHNERT : Cedar lined. PAT MOORE : Yeah MEMBER ACAMPORA : You buy it as a unit. PAT MOORE : I actually asked is it a pre-fab but I don't it's Long Island Spa in Kings Park I think or Jamesport MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's probably a pre-fab PAT MOORE : Yeah at least parts of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) custom make them but usually more reasonable if you just buy a unit that is already PASCAL SCHAARY : What's approved in terms of size. BOARD SECRETARY : Pat has the Building Department seen this? PAT MOORE : Yeah they issued the Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as we don't call it recreation space. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Well this is the plan that they got. BOARD SECRETARY : Okay I just want to make sure. PAT MOORE :They actually called it out for the spa in the Notice of Disapproval. BOARD SECRETARY : Not the sauna but the Jacuzzi. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN They did not call that out, they called out the new shed that you want to build,the Jacuzzi in a side yard and shed in the side yard technically MEMBER LEHNERT :The site plan indicates a pool house use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and the condition that barred it from the uses anything other than storage and it just says the structure has its own septic system which is not really a I don't know what it is why that's on a Disapproval but PAT MOORE : Well I think because it's going to have a bathroom and the condition of the ZBA was only electricity so I think they called out all the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) as well as the storage. I don't think I have any further questions, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I do not have any questions,thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So 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 : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously and we will have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. I think we're ready to recess for lunch. Motion to recess. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye June 2,2022 Regular Meeting HEARING#7636—JOHN M. CARROLL and M.AMELIA MURPHY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good afternoon everyone. The next application before the Board is for John Carroll and Amelia Murphy #7636. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 29, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to raise and construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 230 Inlet Ave. (adj. to Gardiners Bay) in Greenport. So Rob you want to just state your name for the record. ROB HERRMANN : Yes Rob Herrmann at En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking at additions and alterations to raise an existing dwelling to FEMA compliance with a side yard setback at 6.4 feet where the code requires a minimum of 15 feet and it is considered to be LWRP consistent. ROB HERRMANN : As Leslie just pointed out we're requesting (inaudible) necessary for renovations that would maintain a pre-existing non-conforming setback of 6.4 feet to the southerly side property line where 15 feet is required under code and R40 zoning district. Specifically the one story portion of the existing one and two story dwelling and the covered porch on the waterside of it are located 6.4 feet from the side lot line. The applicants are proposing to extend the existing second floor over the existing first story with no increase in footprint and effectively in place of an existing roof deck that's above it and extend the covered porch seaward by 5 feet and then reestablish the roof deck above the extended covered porch. There's also an open pergola proposed on the front side of the house and as Leslie mentioned the entire dwelling structure is also proposed to be elevated 2.8 feet to a FEMA compliant base flood elevation. None of the proposed work will encroach further on the existing setback. As we've argued in our application the proposed renovations will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the surrounding properties. Including the applicants there are eleven waterfront properties located along Inlet Lane, nine of which are separated from Gardiners Bay by the title waters and wetlands of Gull Pond Inlet and then the Bayfront beach adjacent to the tidal waters of Gardiners Bay. Really all of these properties as a result have pre-existing non-conforming lot areas in the R40 district. Like the applicants at least four other lots including all three properties to the north of the applicants a total of almost half the properties on Inlet Lane are characterized by dwellings with non-conforming side yard setbacks two of which were established by variance relief. Specifically in 1989 the property located two to the north was June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting granted relief to construct a deck addition that reduced a previously conforming side yard setback by 12 feet to 3.6 feet from the southerly property line, that was case 3833 and long ago in 1961 the property located three to the north at 480 Inlet Lane was granted relief to construct a dwelling addition that reduced a previously non-conforming side yard setback by 2 additional feet to 8 feet from the southerly property line which was case 403. In this older case the Board observed and based it's relief in part on the observation that the wetlands on the property effectively constrained the properties development to the most southerly side of the property. You notice that was the case in both of those cases and it is similarly the case , here where the wetlands encroach farther toward the road on the north side of the property and so historically the house the existing house is located on the south side of the property farthest from wetlands. So this condition here allows the existing house to be raised in.place and a porch extended by several feet without encroaching any farther on the existing wetlands setback. Really both the existing and the proposed conditions of the applicant's property are quite consistent with these other properties in the neighborhood and because the site conditions are not changing significantly we've also argued in our application that the requested relief while mathematically substantial is not substantial in fact and will not adversely impact the neighboring properties. Since there are no additionally proposed encroachment on the substantially larger dwelling to the south we do not expect that property to be adversely impacted and although no variance relief was required, in 2020 the dwelling that's located immediately adjacent to the north which is located 11 feet from the applicant's northerly side property line received Trustees approval for a second floor expansion and seaward deck addition so similar to what is proposed here. It may be worth noting that while the dwelling is proposed to be elevated to FEMA compliance thus reducing the flood and erosion damage potential. I don't believe variance relief is technically required for that element of that application. It is associated with the proposed additions but also associated with the proposed additions is-the proposal to replace the existing conventional septic system with a low nitrogen IA sanitary system which creates a significant environmental benefit to the project along with the installation of a new storm water drainage system and a proposed 10 foot wide buffer to be established adjacent to the wetland boundary. So it's our position in that result of this modest renovation or fairly significant environmental benefits to the property without any detrimental impacts on the surrounding neighborhood or neighbors in particular. So.hoping that we have met the variance standards we're looking for the Board's approval of our application. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, if.it weren't basically for the second story over the existing first story on what is now the roof deck you wouldn't even you're just going to raise it to FEMA you wouldn't even need to be here. ROB HERRMANN : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're right there's no variance required for the elevation it's the side yard setback that gets triggered as a result of the addition. ROB HERRMANN : Correct MEMBER DANTES : What happens to the shed that's on the survey? ROB HERRMANN : Oh so if you look at the site plan that shed has to be relocated toward the road so that it moves out of where it is currently positioned in a non-conforming side yard location and moved to a conforming front yard location which is allowed here because it's waterfront. I think the Building Department picked that up. MEMBER DANTES : The other question is why not just you're lifting it anyway why not just slide the house over and conform? ROB HERRMANN : Well that's part of what I was trying to focus on here in terms of the addition to the wetland constraints. As with the other properties if you look at the site plan and survey, the wetlands tend to bend landward as you move to the north so if you were to pick up the house and move it far enough toward the center of the property you would then be encroaching further or closer to wetlands. MEMBER DANTES : Oh so that 92.1 foot number would then be reduced and then you'd have to go through other agencies to get (inaudible) ROB HERRMANN : To the north of that, that 86 foot setback to the corner of the existing house would be reduced and so that would make the entire dwelling less compliant with Chapter 275 of the Town Code so we're really trying to work within the existing footprint really with the exception of that 5 foot extension of the covered porch but because that's all the way up in this south corner that doesn't really affect that doesn't add any significant encroachment on the wetlands whereas the repositioning of the house would. I mean obviously it is also historically this is where the house has been historically located and its located to the south for a reason and it would also add considerably substantial cost to the June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting project to have to move the entire location of the house because you basically been restarting from scratch as if it,were a vacant lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you need Trustees on this? ROB HERRMANN : We will need Trustees and we actually just submitted the town wetlands application so if the Board were to find favorably on the application that would enable us to then be heard by the Trustees next month and this is a renovation that's quite similar to one the Board just approved less than two years ago on the adjacent property to the north so we're hopeful that they would receive it favorably as well. A New York State Tidal Wetlands Permit is required from the DEC and that permit has been issued. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have that permit? ROB HERRMAAN : Correct it was issued in January of this year and then of course the Health Department application is pending the outcome of the town approvals. MEMBER DANTES : Do we have a copy of that permit in our file? ROB HERRMANN : I believe you do but if you don't I'll send it to Kim. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions relatively straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick any questions from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm good thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on Zoom Liz? Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? MEMBER DANTES : Do you guys have that (inaudible) BOARD SECRETARY : I don't see it listed in your letter June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting ROB HERRMANN :The DEC permit? MEMBER DANTES : Send it to Kim. ROB HERRMANN : You will get it today. MEMBER DANTES : Perfect. Here we go New York State Department of Environmental January 28, 2022. ROB HERRMANN :That's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so 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 : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the,motion carries we'll have a decision in two weeks. ROB HERRMANN :Thanks for hearing us. HEARING#7637—JOTAS CORPORATION CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jotas Corporation #7637. This is a request for variances from Article X Section 280-45C(2)(f) (Accessory Uses), Article X Section 280-46 and the Building Inspector's January 13,:2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing commercial building at 1) proposed apartment comprises of more than 50% of the principal building, 2) construction located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet located at 1000 Village Lane in Orient. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : My name is Joan Chambers, I'm representing the owners. I'd like to start out by mentioning that this project was reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Committee and the Certificate of Appropriateness was issued on February 24tH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we discovered we're going to have to amend the language in it because it referred to the apartment as an artist studio when in fact they're not approving use they're simply approving the exterior renovations on the proposed apartment. JOAN CHAMBERS : Kim mentioned that to me and we'll get that straightened out but you know that hearing has been passed successfully. At that hearing some members of the public expressed concerns about this project contributing to the density of the village and we didn't really discuss it at the HPC meeting because it wasn't the proper format but I thought I would just speak a bit to that at this point. You have to understand that the project is that most of that building is post office and none of that is changing. This is an existing one bedroom apartment that has been an apartment prior to 1957 and we have an affidavit to that effect. It's not a new apartment and it's not going to be anything but a one bedroom apartment we're not adding a bedroom to this. What's happening is building a connector of only 328 sq. ft., connect the existing one bedroom apartment to the existing accessory structure in the rear so that the accessory structure can be made into kitchen/dining room so that the owners can have some more space when they move into this part. It's not a large addition. The addition itself the 328 sq. ft. has no zoning issues, it's well away from all the setbacks. The zoning issue is of course with this existing accessory structure which is very near the property line and that structure will be altered on the interior for an interior renovation but in no way is it going to encroach further than it already is. If some of the neighbors object to seeing this addition the owner is willing to do some re-landscaping along the back of the property to hide it from view but the truth is that most of the members of the village will never see this addition. It all takes place behind the post office. I also just want to mention that the owner applied for and received a Board of Health permit and has upgraded the septic and that permit was issued the work has been done it has been inspected so they did that not that anyone required it because just as a way of improving the property during this process. I believe the owners are present with us via Zoom if anyone has questions for them and we also have the architect here Mr. Arizumi who can answer questions perhaps if you have questions about the 50%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN We have something from the Department of Health there was some question about the sanitary flow because of the various uses in that building. Can you address that please? June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : I'm sorry I haven't seen anything from him but I believe (inaudible) GLYNNIS BERRY : So the issue was Glyniss Berry, the issue was trying to identify the historic flow so by increasing the apartment the flow that the Health Department uses increases slightly. So they did not approve it at this time because they were looking for specific information that proved the historic. Since that we have found other documents that describe exactly what we submitted as the historic flow so the owner if she obtained all of the approvals will go back to have them readdress that but at this time they just recognized the existing flow. Also the system that size handles both so there's no change to the sizing of the system that was put in place. So the flow difference (inaudible) is really small actually. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay cause when we have uses we have post office which probably has a half bath. GLYNNIS BERRY : Right and then you have the little ice cream take out place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right that is no longer functioning as an ice cream place is it or GLYNNIS BERRY : Well they sell ice cream. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Then there's Opties and Dingies in there?, GLYNISS BERRY : That's the one I'm talking about its Opties and Dingies. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I mean it was previously just ice cream in there and now it's they sell ice cream but it's actually a restaurant. GLYNNIS BERRY : Right well it's not classified as a restaurant it's classified as a wet store I believe because the seating is less than an X number. I forget exactly the classification but it depends on the number of seats. The historic flow was actually more than what they're proposing because the ice cream parlor used to be bigger so when you calculate that the historic flow was actually more than existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a whole list of CO's that you submitted on this property so I just want to know was any work done on this building without obtaining a permit or GLYNNIS BERRY : Not that I know of. We.saw the documents and Joan probably can answer this better than I maybe you should take over for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like it was but I just want it in the record, it looks like everything was permitted. June 2,2022 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS :'Thank you everything could find on record has been permitted and CO'd including the recent addition of a side door which we went to HPC for. That CO has been issued you know they said they'd.go back you know decades. I can't find you know speaking to the women-at the Building Department any violations or objects in there that are not under CO. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now here's another question, you are proposing to add I think you said 328 sq. ft. addition? JOAN CHAMBERS : That's the addition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks to me and I just want to be sure that the existing square footage of the apartment is 564 sq.ft. is that correct? JOAN CHAMBERS : Would you like to address the square footages? This is the architect he is much better handling this. HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : This is Hideaki I am the architect. This is about 50% apartment (inaudible) is that right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Speak into the microphone a little bit you can move it whatever works for you. HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : Is this location 50% apartment ration is it right or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It appears from the drawings that the existing apartment is 564 sq. ft. and if you add that to the square footage you're proposing to add for the connection and for the you said it was 328 sq. ft. you're going to add, that would bring the apartment up to a total of 892 sq. ft. altogether? HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : Actually more because we are at the (inaudible) go back to the barn to an apartment so the actual total apartment is like 1,400 will be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will be 1,412 HIKEAKI ARIZUMI : 25 something like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now our local code does not define the size of an apartment but state code does say that anything above 850 sq. ft. is in fact a dwelling. Apartments are anywhere between 350 and 849 sq. ft. so we have to look at whether or not the size plus there is that ratio you were saying. It cannot be more than I think an apartment in a dwelling I June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting know can't be greater than 40% of the principle building. In this case the Building Department has said that the apartment is 65.8%. HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : I do have a little different point for that calculation. The (inaudible) they calculated that new the expanded apartment floor area over existing main living which is insane for me it's (inaudible) done no base for that calculation. It's completely different and instead I think we need to calculate the expanded apartment over proposed including these (inaudible) as a main building then it will go down to 47% which is Southold the code requires 50% maximum. So I think that is you know ask you to consider this determination is something (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well I see the point you're making, the Board however is obligated to grant relief or deny relief based upon what a Code Enforcement Official tells us is not conforming to the code and their calculating 65.8%. HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : But I calculate 47% as when it's done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When it's done right. HIDEAKI ARIZUMI So it's complying for me. GLYNNIS BERRY : Once it's constructed it will comply with the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're saying that the existing okay what we need to know is what is the overall size of the commercial building right. HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : Commercial building CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Without the apartment. HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : Yes, it's not changed and it's 1,605.11 sq.ft. that is commercial part. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The commercial part is 1,600 HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : The commercial is 1,605.11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 05 okay commercial and you're saying when it's all done it's going to 1,412 sq. ft.? HIDEAKI ARIZUMI :The apartment proposed is 1,425 yes. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That commercial calculation does not include the existing apartment that's just the post office and Opties and Dingies. HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : It's just the (inaudible) commercial part. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so then I see what you're saying. So then it would be less than 50%. HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : From my calculation is (inaudible). Then it would be 47%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay got it. On-site parking on the apartment I guess would require two parking spaces and then there needs to be space for I guess the post office truck. HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : Parking actually is nothing will be changed as is everything is there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I saw two cars there when I went to do the inspection and there was a postal truck in,the back and a parking area also. Do we have copy of the Board of Health permit? Glynnis said that the Board of Health permit was issued and the septic was upgraded, do we have that in our file? GLYNNIS BERRY : I don't know but I can email it over. Who should I sent it to? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Send it to Kim and then she'll put it in our file and send it out to the rest of the Board. GLYNNIS BERRY : We have the red stamp permit, it isn't closed out yet because they're having her move the well and that still is in process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's one approval that's we can check off and you're working on the Department of Health right now for the flow. Let's see what the Board might have, Pat do you have any questions at this time? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions from me. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick do you have any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, it's relevant for me to inquire relative to the tenant of this ice cream shop because it seems to me to be more of a takeout restaurant than ice cream shop what is the license involved with that business? Is it governed by agricultural markets of AG and Markets which is like a grocery store which allows ice cream shops or is it through Board of Health?So in other words who is it that governs this particular business and then ultimately how does this impact all of what we're discussing both for parking or change of use or any number of things, wastewater.the environment etc.? JOAN CHAMBERS : I don't I understand what question is being asked also the ice cream parlor/takeout food restaurant isn't really what we're addressing here today but I can say that I am aware that there is a landlord tenant dispute between the owners and the people who are running the restaurant that is taking place right now and I don't feel qualified to discuss that. I understand how people would think that is relevant but I don't, have enough information I don't know if it's governed by the Board of Health by Southold Town Building Department a change of use that might be something that needs to be addressed actually in another hearing if the restaurant continues and (inaudible) no longer an ice cream parlor but with all due respect I don't think that's what we are addressing today. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : While I agree the two are in my opinion however you know joined. It impacts wastewater, it impacts on-site parking, it impacts how the property is used. It would be helpful information for me to understand the tenant that if it's an AG and Markets based business like the way a grocery store functions or something you know their uses are substantially different than if it's a Board of Health approved restaurant type of facility and I can understand what you're suggesting that the apartment use doesn't have you know an impact on the other but it's my opinion that it's one building, it's one site and it's an opportunity that all should be reviewed so it's properly cleaned or not cleaned but so that we have complete understanding of what is going on, on this particular property. JOAN CHAMBERS : As I said I understand your concerns about that and all I can say is that the owners leased that as an ice cream parlor and it people have concerns that it's'no longer an ice cream parlor but I cannot speak for the owners and their legal actions against this tenant. Perhaps Joan or Howard if you're listening in you'd like to have something to say about that at this point. I don't feel it's my business to discuss your legal actions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN':Joan have you been hearing the questions Joan? June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting JOAN TURTURRO : Can I please have the question repeated I quite frankly forgot what was asked at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick do you want to ask the question again? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah and I'm sorry to sound if I'm long winded, I'm just trying to understand the interplay between the different tenants, the proposed action where you would like to expand an apartment which well the square footage well in short it's my understanding when one has a food based business if and I'm speaking for the tenant.1 think the tenant was actually on line earlier I saw their name at one point but if you have a food based business it's typically a restaurant a cafe etc. where food is prepared on site it's with Board of Health that has steep requirements for septic versus if you have a business that is based it's an AG and Markets license it has a very different set of rules and I simply asked what license does the tenant have. Is it an AG and Markets license which allows them I believe to prepare certain amounts of food and they can't have greater than sixteen seats or is it a Board of Health approval which obviously allows them to have a kitchen where the preparing of food on site for takeout or in house consumption. JOAN TURTURRO : I really don't have a firm idea of exactly what they have. I know they have we had and tenants prior to them always had a health permit from the Health Department to have an ice cream parlor or to have a pie shop that sold things not cooked on premise. At this point I really do not know what kind of permit they have or allowed to have. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the reason why I asked this though is because that impacts in my opinion the wastewater calculations that I don't understand if no one understand what the tenant's he is how can we calculate the sanitary to understand you know the bigger picture of the property? JOAN TURTURRO : I understand your question and I've been asking that question for a very, very long time. At this point there's a whole new septic system put in to begin with that will accommodate things that were not accommodated prior to the new IA system put in. Remember this is a historic village and most people still on Village Lane (inaudible) cesspools not even a septic systems so it's all being changed at this point now. It's hard for me to answer that question in terms of water flow and etc. etc. other than the fact that it's been existing and there's always been an apartment, there's always been two people living there, there's always been an ice cream shop that was larger than this one in fact, there's always been a post office that was smaller but now larger. So I don't know if I can answer that any better. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick, Glynnis wants to add to that statement. GLYNNIS BERRY : I'm not answering the question about what permits the operator of the food service has but I did apply for the wastewater permit and we put in a grease trap as well as sized it according to the Health Department direction which included you know food aspects. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did you apply a restaurant or as an ice cream shop? GLYNNIS BERRY : It was not as a restaurant, they have a different categorization, I didn't realize there were going to be these kinds of questions because I thought it was about other issues but I can email you exactly the classification that they gave me for that shop. It has limited number of seats. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Department of Health? GLYNNIS BERRY : Department of Health it's on the permit so also when I send you the red stamp you'll also see it right there. But the grease trap handles and it's sized correctly to handle the flow that the Health Department determined. MEMBER DANTES : Here's the thing I mean it's CO'd as an ice cream shop so for us if they ' change it to anything other than ice cream shop wouldn't that need site plan approval? MEMBER PLANAMENTO :This is something that I was getting after Eric. DEPUTY ATTORNEY BURKE Depending on what the use is, yes. MEMBER DANTES :That CO specifically says ice cream shop. JOAN TURTURRO : It is supposed to be and has always been an ice cream shop. The current lease with the current tenant was for an ice cream pop "creperie". Creperie's don't require much water to make a crepe okay and that was it. Anything more, anything we use more is out of my domain I can't do anything about that as for the Health Department and the town but it has always been designated since 1926 as an ice cream parlor to begin with and a post office and an apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you Joan that helps. JOAN TURTURRO : I mean is there anything else I can do to help clarify this situation cause CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I think it's I don't think so I think we now understand the history of the building and you know it's historic use and these other calculations have to be done June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting and submitted through the proper channels the Health Department, Board of Health so I think we're alright. Let's see if should I open this up to the audience to see if anybody wants to address the application? THOMAS FOSTER : Good afternoon my name is Thomas Foster I live at 21165 Main Rd. in Orient. My daughter and her husband own and operate the Orient Country Store which is next door to the Post Office. I have some prepared remarks but just to start, it's astonishing to me looking at the number two construction located less than the code minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet that we're even discussing this. It's a residence it's a dwelling that they're talking about and it's right on the property line. But anyway I would like to go through the remarks I have prepared as to why the 25 foot setback should be adhered to. Provisions of the code are clear. Let us back up for a moment to examine the context of the provisions. First, in the zoning code there is a statement of purpose. The purpose of the hamlet density residential district is to permit a mix of housing.types a level of residential density appropriate to the area in and around the major hamlet centers including Orient. The Southold Town Comprehensive Plan which we adopted a couple of years ago notes that the overall residential density of Orient is low at .2 units per acre. At the corner of Village Lane and Skippers Lane however the actual density is considerably higher. The three parcels going north on the west side of Village Lane have a total square footage of approximately 24,000 sq. ft. that's the property on the corner, the post office property and the Orient Country Store property. Those three parcels together are less than half an acre I'm sorry just over a half an acre. On these three lots there are four businesses, the Orient Linen Company, Opties and Dingies, the Post Office, the Orient Country Store and three dwelling units. There's a dwelling unit where Janet Markarian lives, there's the apartment that we've been discussing and we have an accessory apartment permit for upstairs in the Orient Country Store. There's so much pressure on this small areas water resources of wells that the Orient Country Store last year had to spend almost twenty thousand dollars to install an ultra violet system to remove certain contaminants from this well water which we did and we now are in compliance with the Health Department but it's very expensive and it's a very delicate area. They say it's very nice that Joan said, "well I don't know what's going on, they're doing something and I don't know what it is I can't control it" but for two years they operated that restaurant without a grease trap.They were polluting the ground water and we ended up having to spend all the money to purify our water so it's nice that they put that new system in now but that's a little bit too little too late as far as I'm concerned. It's already too dense already too dense for the drinking water and sewage system capacity. What is the purpose of zoning regulations? Are they simply an inconvenience for property owners who may routinely be granted special June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting exemptions? The Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan states in goal six in its land use and zoning section that one purpose is "to protect ground water and surface water quality and quantity".JOTAS Corporation the operators of the post office recently installed a long overdue septic system but this does not address the significant overuse of water resources already existing in the immediate area by the seven distinct users. With sea level and water tables inexorably rising through the global warming in our coastal hamlet over the next few years this new system will likely be overwhelmed by the end of the decade. The area does not need and cannot support an expanded residential accessory building. on the Jotas property. In addition to the natural resources issues there's the general issue of density which was the first thing that was addressed. We tried to raise this issue before the Historic Preservation Commission they listened politely but they said that's not their jurisdiction, raise it with the Zoning Board. So the fact that they didn't make a ruling one way or the other on density is because they said they can't they couldn't it's not their business. We think the issue with density is properly raised at this meeting. There was a good reason for the Town of Southold to adopt its setback requirements for residential buildings. The Comprehensive Plan sets forth the necessity for appropriate setbacks in Objective 2.2 of the Land Use and Zoning section which says and I'm not going to quote the whole thing, "the Comprehensive Plan suggests we revisit the setbacks and maximum building height to ensure that neighboring homes are not adversely affected by new houses which is the same as new residential uses. Setbacks are the minimum distance a building must be from the property line. If the building is too close it can block sunlight to a neighboring home and be out of proportion and character with the rest of the neighborhood. In other words the Southold Town Zoning Code has twin objectives- supporting landowners with reasonable rules for exploitation of their property and protecting neighborhoods. As considerate and conscientious as most neighbors are when too many residences are packed into a small area the whole neighborhood suffers. The interests of a person to persons living right on the property line for 24/7 usage will inevitably clash with the quiet enjoyment of those next door and close by. There is no justification that I can see for modifying the reasonable existing setback requirement of 25 feet either as an amendment to the town code oras a special exception.The structure in question was built many years ago as a garage they talk about it's from the twenties and used as a garage.The owners subsequently improved the building and have rented it out as an artist's studio. Neither of these uses is in conflict with the intent or the language of the zoning code. Is there a compelling reason to grant the variance? The setback requirement long predates their ownership, so these petitioners knew when they purchased the property that the zoning code prohibited conversion of the lot line garage into a residential space. There is no hardship in enforcing a clear pre-existing ordinance. Granting the ordinance would set a terrible precedent. I have a June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting Google map which I'm going to give to you of the immediate area. If you go down Skippers Lane just two houses '220 Skippers Lane and 160 Skippers Lane both have existing lot line structures which by the. logic employed by JOTAS would be eligible for identical residential variances. Turning onto Village Lane 1100 Village Lane property on the corner that's Janet Markarian has an existing lot line garage but it's a garage they're not trying to turn into a residence. The Orient Country Store next door going north on the other side of the property has an existing garage, we're not trying to change that into a residence it's a garage. 800 Village Lane the next property north has a pending application to convert a lot line structure into an artist studio so we're already seeing somebody is trying to take advantage of these exceptions in these exemptions. I don't know what the status'of that application is and I'm not opposing it but it's just showing that there's a tremendous amount of pressure on this immediate area. If the Board grants the variance requested by JOTAS there is no principle reason that all of these structures should not be eligible for similar treatment. From 25 feet the actual requirement for all setbacks would become zero feet. I respectfully request that this Board let the garage continue to be a garage or an artist studio and uphold the Building Inspector's reasonable Notice of Disapproval dated January 13, 2022.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you submit those comments to us for the record? THOMAS FOSTER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She'll make copies and send them out to all of us. THOMAS FOSTER : Now I think my son-in-law wants to (inaudible) LUCY STILLE : Hi I'm Lucy Stifle I live at 220 Skippers Lane right around the corner from this property and like Tom I attended the Historic Preservation Commission to address the issue of density and as he discussed the Committee announced the density was not in their purview and they suggested that I go to the Town Council and raise density as an issue. I went to the Town Council and Scott Russell said we're preparing our own statements, we hear you there's nothing to be done right now so everybody sent me here to the Zoning Board. I agree with everything that Tom said and I do think density is the real issue in that area. Between the table out front of Opties and Dingies, the people coming and out of the Post Office, the delivery trucks that are coming to service both places with food stocks, kids riding and parking their bikes it's a very dense crowded area with a lot of population. One of the things that happens, right now there's no way that you could entertain or host a dinner party or something in the artist studio/apartment that exists. What they're proposing is to take what is now a garage a barn and turn it into an entertainment space. They're going to put a kitchen, June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting dining table there's even several people who told me that the owner would like to regularly host dinners for eight to ten people. That's going to be in a building that's on the lot line that sits right next to my neighbor's yard and by extension next to my yard. I'm very concerned about the noise that will come out of that entertainment space, great room, living room whatever it is that they're building that will affect my peace and quiet. Also the connected tissue from the barn to the residence that -now exists absolutely abuts Janet Markarian's property. So that right now if you sat in her garden if this unit was built as you look at the right hand side of her garden all you would see was structure and roof. Whatever greenery is there would be have to be removed in order to do this structure I don't know if that would reduce the amount of air, right now there's some open space, air would come in. As Tom said too I think it sets a really bad precedent. I have a garage on the lot line at the back of my yard.. If I had grandchildren boy I'd be before you saying let me turn that into a guest house where I could put my kids. What's the compelling reason for this variance, because they want to have an expanded residence? Is that enough in an already incredibly densely packed and trafficked area. And I too have a letter which I'm happy to submit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. MEMBER DANTES : So basically what you guys are saying is that habitable space on the property lines is not characteristic of this neighborhood is that accurate? UNAMED SPEAKER : Correct (inaudible) neighborhood? MEMBER DANTES : of this particular neighborhood. UNAMED SPEAKER : Not yet. If we stop it now it won't be. MEMBER DANTES : Okay GRAYSON MURPHY : I have some photos. My name is Grayson Murphy I own the Orient Country Store. My wife and I have owned it since 2011, the property to the north of Joan's parcel on Village Lane. While 1.understand the realities of being in a'commercially zoned district the extent to which JOTAS Corp is and has been exploiting this small lot is detrimental to the peace, property and the water supply to the community. As it is now on this tiny lot with all single story construction there's a post office, a full blown restaurant sit in, takeout, small apartment, and an artist studio. The post office has multiple trucks coming in and out that routinely break our fences and you can see examples of that in photos three, five and six. The restaurant spills out with tables and umbrellas blocking the sidewalk and there also seems to be no sufficient exhaust system. Apparently assuming that their new extension was a sure June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting thing they installed JOTAS installed a new septic system as per town's requirements. Before and after this project there were massive trees dug up and replanted into land that is now graded differently higher and you can see that in picture one. The trees including a large Japanese Maple fell over onto my property several times actually once when all my children. were playing in the back yard. The newly replanted trees are currently tethered trees on my property for support. You can see that in photos two and four. I've watched the JOTAS property has overstepped over the years recently spreading it's infrastructure thin. With this increase demand on the areas water supply and waste mitigation after eight years of having no issues we've recently had to pay for multiple tests, chlorination's and eventually the installation of a'complex UV filtration system. No doubt this additions with it's you know more bathrooms etc. will add to this exacerbate this issue. Setback requirements were agreed upon -in order to reach a balance. Parcels with sufficient land are allowed to be further developed while smaller lots are prevented from being aggressively overbuilt. I'm sure that JOTAS, will overstep with this proposed addition just as they have with every aspect of the property in the past to the detriment of the neighboring properties. Therefore I respectfully request that the Board uphold the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. You want to submit those written comments as well? Rob did you see'these?Are these copies for each of us or MEMBER RANTES : Do you live in the apartment? GRAYSON MURPHY : No it's currently empty. GLYNNIS BERRY : May I address as a couple, just as a reminder the lot coverage allowed by code is 40% and even with the addition it will only be 33.9% so actual lot coverage could be much more than'they have now. MEMBER DANTES :,How many square feet per use allowed in that zoning district? It says in the code how many square feet you need for each use, there's three separate uses how many square feet does each person have for all three uses? GLYNNIS BERRY : Well it's all relative like that's not a question that is answered because you could build up to 40% of the lot area okay and you could have more commercial and they want a maximum of 50% residential. So you could actually increase the size of the building Legally right now. Also the,addition that is being added meets all the setbacks of the current code. It's not impinging at all on the setbacks. The only thing that is, is the existing structure and you have to remember that these buildings were built pre code and they give local June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting character. I mean hamlets are dense neighborhoods and historically they were even more active than they are now. There are many residences that used to have storage in them as well so historically it was even more active. Also this owner is looking to use the apartment for herself and in addition she jis also being required by the Health Department to put in a UV system so she is actually upgrading the wells as well and they're doing this for people who you know provide food and deal with the public. They're trying to make sure they protect because the cesspools a lot of the wastewater in the neighborhood are cesspools so there are all sorts of contaminants so they want to make sure that the public is getting good water. So blaming just one user for that I think is not correct and I know other people in the neighborhood one person you know it was a totally different kind of a contaminant that you know a few blocks away has to put in you know a treatment system. So it's a dense neighborhood but the Health Department has ways of dealing with it and requiring upgrades. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Glynnis, somebody else wanting to say something out in the audience? Let's see if anybody else has any further questions, Pat, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I'm just reading the bulk schedule now and for HB hamlet business for non-residential uses you're supposed to have 20,000 sq. ft. per use. I don't know if this is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This probably has a Pre CO. MEMBER DANTES : Right I know that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know it's certainly been that way for decades. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would concur Eric's opinion relative if there is in fact a change of use or the need for Planning Board review because I do think the two are tied together. So from the residential use which we know there is a legally conforming apartment from the Pre CO but because of the tenants current use it does impact things and I think the expansion of a building it all presents an interesting dialogue here. I'm just mirroring a bit of what Eric was leading into. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one way to find out is to go back to the Building Department and inquire. Just say would this expanded apartment require site plan approval. They would be the determiners here I mean we can surmise certain things based 'on familiarity with the code but it would require for us to take any action the action of you know the Building Department. BOARD SECRETARY : They usually indicate it in their NOD June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They usually do but they didn't here but that doesn't mean that they always catch everything. JOAN CHAMBERS : Right I understand, when I first submitted the building permit expecting the letter of Disapproval. I have several exchanges they may be emails I may be able to forward them to you with Amanda and she said that they would not be requiring Planning Board approval or a site plan approval for this project. That was made really clear cause we had discussed that at length when we were applying for the building permit. So I will try to find details of those conversations and forward them to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be helpful Joan, thank you. Anybody else from the Board or anyone in the audience?Anybody on Zoom,Joan did you want to say something? JOAN TURTURRO : Yes it's a little concerning to me that this is coming up at this point in like after owning the building for just about twenty five years, after being involved in business with ice cream parlors and living there also prior to Orient Inn and having many different vendors other than a post office using the little stores, ice cream parlors and a pie shop the change now has nothing to do with anything we wanted. It's a change that was done without our knowledge and we've been trying for many years now trying to get all the authorities to deal with this it's not (inaudible) dealt with. Being accused by neighbors next door of water contamination by us you know leaves me sort of strangled about this because number one water contamination can come from anywhere. Water contamination on Village Lane can be coming from East Marion even we don't even know, that's number one. Number two, I had to also clean my water at the price of nine thousand dollars. You know we all have to clean the water, most of the people in Orient do not drink the water they buy bottled water. There's a reason for that and putting it all on one little property okay and it is a little property and it's a nice property and it's a good property and it make the hamlet and it makes the town. Why do you want to ruin this or kill it in any way is beyond me and number two, it always has been a two person apartment. There was one time when previous owners sold their apartment part of the apartment to the post office that was part of the ice cream parlor. We turned it back again to an ice cream parlor and reduced the apartment. Now if we have to we'll live in two little tiny rooms which are good for a weekend or vacation but it's not good for a home and wanting to have a kitchen and a dining room in a normal space it's.not even.a huge space in a normal space is equal to anyone else having a home and why we would be denied in having a home and I think people in their homes don't just shut themselves off in a room and close a door. They have dinner parties, they have friends over, they have family over I mean I don't understand this big concern of over density. The over density that's happening of anything June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting that's alarming are all the pools being put in and all the houses that are going for rental I mean that's party time not what we want to do. I hope I addressed (inaudible) had no idea had any of these feelings whatsoever. Howard would like to speak. HOWARD LESHAW : Somebody mentioned this is Howard here, somebody mentioned something about the bicycles and the traffic and the cars, well the post office truck comes a few times a day there's plenty of room for him, there's never been an issue. (inaudible) has his own parking space. There is a parking space in the back for one car and that's the only car that would be back there. As far as all the bicycles that are parked in the driveway those are customers from the General Store, we have no jurisdiction over them we don't chase them we don't bother them if they park there as long as they're.not in the way of the truck we leave them alone. As far as the restaurant is concerned the lease for Opties and Dingies was given to him as an ice cream parlor and it was supposed to be an ice cream parlor and a creperie and he turned it into a takeout restaurant. We have for three years trying to get him to comply with all the regulations of the town, the Building Department, the Health Department we've gotten nowhere. We were ignored by the town we were ignored by the Health Department. We are now involved in an eviction proceeding that we hope will solve the. problem. If and when he is gone we can promise you that we will revert back to the ice cream parlor, there will not be the same water use that it has been from the restaurant. The restaurant uses an incredible amount of hot water. We wanted an ice cream parlor it's always been that, we made it the ice cream parlor when we ran it and we had kids from the town running it, it was wonderful. We will go back to doing that. So we are not in league with Vincent Bertault, we are not partners with him, it is not our idea to have a restaurant we did not want it, we do not want it. I want to be very clear on that. So if anybody is thinking that we have designs to create a restaurant and a full service restaurant in a kind of a business that is not the case we are not looking to do that. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Howard. Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to say anything about this application? Is there anyone on Zoom? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie may I say one other thing or just ask a question? Relative to any precedent, I know that well two different people spoke in opposition relative to an accessory structure on a lot line being used residentially but are there precedence or does the applicant have precedent relief examples to share with us of similar relief in Orient Village? JOAN TURTURRO : No as.an applicant I don't but I could look into it if needed. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Joan Chambers is very well versed (inaudible) in looking up prior decisions. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes I can do that and get back to you within a few days. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whatever you turn up just email to Kim, she will forward it all to us for our records. Okay so there's a few things we need to collect. Are you ready to close this or do you want to adjourn subject to receipt of priors subject to receipt of any what did we ask for and Glynnis you're going to send us something from Health Department. Okay well then I'm going to close subject to receipt okay. Alright so what I'm going to do is make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of information about prior variance relief that's comparable to what is being proposed and any Department of Health information that you can provide. Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Thank you all for your patience by the way. We know that it's frustrating to be sitting and waiting your turn and the clock keeps ticking on and on but that's the process we go through for a reason. People have the right'to be heard and we want to make sure that we're thorough and that we hear everybody's opinions so thank you for bearing with us as we go through this process. Everything that we get as quickly as is feasible we put on Laser Fiche in our records so that the public can have access to it. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING#7667—ANDRIY LOTOTSKYY. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Andriy Lototskyy #7667. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section .280-15 and: the Building Inspector's February 23, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 215 Eighth St. in Laurel Would you state your name please. MARYNA BILOUS My name is Maryna Bilous I'm acting as the agent for Andriy Lototskyy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking here at a deck that was built with a side yard setback I'm sorry front yard setback of 39 feet where the code requires 40 feet. It's a shame that you even have to be here. You had a building permit for it, the foundation location on the survey is 1 foot less than what the code requires. Just so you're aware we've all visited the property, we've seen what the neighbor's property looks like what the neighborhood looks like. MARYNA BILOUS : Before I begin I'd like to apologize for my heavy accent and the occasional stutter. English is my second language but I'll try to do my best. Yes you can take a look at,the original construction documents submitted I believe it's page ten, it shows the front view of the house so the proposed renderings include I have it here if you want to take a look the proposed renderings include three columns on the porch of I guess they were originally around 8 inch columns. So as the construction process progressed we decided to go with stone for stud and also decided to do the stone columns sort of to match the design. We brought it up in front of our general contractor who said that in order to execute it the porch has to be reinforced so we agreed and the process went along so the now what was built and unfortunately after that when the final survey was done we learned that we're one foot shy�of the original setback. So basically we're asking the Board to grant us the permission to keep the original existing porch with the columns. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions this is a lovely house. MARYNA BILOUS : I'd also like to add is that the front of our property is bordering a vacant land it's a wetland so it's not hopefully won't be built so I would assume that our extra foot would not affect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody. June 2, 2022 Regular-Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : You can't see the house from the street because of the vegetation that is (inaudible).in the front. MARYNA BILOUS : Yes we're all the way in the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly there's no discernable impact at all and you couldn't tell whether it was conforming or not conforming. MARYNA BILOUS : Glad to hear that. .CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No I mean these things happen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well-this is what happens when you start to do construction in the field and then slight adjustments are necessary and you make one small change sometimes the surveyors get it wrong. I mean we've seen that happen too. MARYNA B.ILOUS : What we experienced in the field this is our first house so yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You'll know next time. It's such a private property I mean you can hardly call Eighth St. a street it's a driveway as a dead end basically. Anything from you Nick? . MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there,a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We'll have a decision in two weeks. it will be mailed to you or you can call the office. The next meeting is June 16th and we meet over at the Annex, it's available to the public on Zoom if you want to listen there's no testimony it's not a hearing we're just discussing various decisions that are before the Board that we heard today and yours will be included in that. HEARING#7639—SAMUEL and REBECCA LISSNER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Samuel and Rebecca Lissner #7639. This is a re.quest for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-116 A (1) and the Building Inspector's November 22, 2021 amended December 10, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions to an existing single family dwelling and to legalize an as built accessory shed to be converted to a pool house at 1) dwelling located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) shed located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 3) shed located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 3925 Soundview Ave. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Mattituck. Hi tell us your name please. JASON FAY : I'm Jason Fay I'm the agent for the client. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it looks like the existing house has a proposed addition at 84.8 feet from the top of the bluff. JASON FAY : Within the corner existing footprint. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the code requires as you know a minimum of 100 feet and the shed to be legalized is 22 feet 11 inches to the top of the bluff. JASON FAY : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the existing shed is also 4.3 feet from the side yard setback where the code requires 25 feet. JASON FAY : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Have you gotten a .copy of the LWRP determination of inconsistency? June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting JASON FAY : Yes same as letter of(inaudible) CHAIRPERSON.WEISMAN : So there's a 20 x 24 foot addition on the front the landward side of the house which is not an issue. JASON FAY : The main thing the clients are trying to do is they bought the house in 2020 and you know used the property as best as possible without making changes and what not to add onto the house but to maintain as much of the property as possible without disturbing anything else. The shed was there, it currently has pool equipment in it which we are moving out and some sort of storage use that a previous client used. There's a lot of existing paving etc. on the property that we are removing and replacing with new paving that's not even and dangerous as well as we're actually overall we're minimizing the amount of lot coverage by removing hard impervious surfaces etc. on the lot. We are going to add an IA system and all water retainage will be probably done which is currently not. The clients already have an application in for revegetation of the bluff. They're doing everything you know in the right way to get everything as legal and safe as possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now the shed is so close to that side yard it is screened from view from the adjacent property there's fence I don't know if that's your fence or the neighbors fence. JASON FAY : There's a fence and there's a large hedge which both will be maintained but we will be also incorporating a legal pool fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here's the thing, it's so close to that hedge row that you know and it does require renovation there's a lot of rot on the exterior of that shed JASON FAY : Yes there is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's not going to be easy to kind of do that kind of construction/renovation without completely messing up the existing hedgerow cause you can't even hardly get in there. JASON FAY : It's possible to be staked and pushed back, a lot of my work is done in the city and we work (inaudible) I mean by staking it MEMBER ACAMPORA : There is an existing garage on the other property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, yeah, yeah there's visual impact. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting JASON FAY : It's more about the topography of the land cause it slopes so far down on that side. If we tried to do any additions or anything on that side then it would non-conforming to height. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That brick that's going down that hill you need a handrail. JASON FAY : It's like a boat ramp fall off the cliff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not ADA compliant. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I originally going to walk down that way and I said I don't think so I'll go around. JASON FAY : See we're doing an overall aesthetic and safety improvements. MEMBER DANTES : You said the footprint of the house on the waterside does not change that's all existing. JASON FAY No the same exact footprint, we're proposing to add you know renovate and add addition where the exiting garage footprint is we're not going forward in that with the exception of a small wooden deck to get out of that space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you know I noticed, the bluff is actually pretty well vegetated I have to say. You don't see a lot of erosion on it. JASON FAY : There's a portion which I'm sure you saw at the deck that whole thing is going to be revegetated they're working on that now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's it's kind of funny because I did take my life in my hands and actually walked down that thing and then walked onto the stairs going down and they looked as though they already did some renovation to the JASON FAY : Yes when they bought the house the previous homeowner ripped out half the stairs so that people could not come up onto her property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know I saw that there's a piece of stair disconnected from the functional stair that goes off to the left JASON FAY : Yeah that was very unstable. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : to the right that looks as though it's going to just completely collapse. Soil and Water would probably not recommend removal at least of the post the decking maybe because it could just create land disturbance. JASON FAY : Yeah they're doing that under a completely separate application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you before the Trustees or do you have to JASON FAY : We will have to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't see any prior variances on this property that would have allowed that shed to be located 22 feet from the top of the bluff. Do you know anything about that? JASON FAY : One of the old C of 0's you know hand written C of 0's it says pool and shed but there's no drawing,there's no I mean that's as far as CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah there is one for the house, there's one for the pool, there's one for a generator but I didn't see any for the shed. JASON FAY : The generator was something they did recently. MEMBER ACAMPORA : That looks like it's been there for a long time. BOARD SECRETARY : Is there an inspection sheet with the C of 0. JASON FAY : I believe yes. BOARD SECRETARY: Sometimes that happens, we see an inspection sheet you know attached to a C of 0 if there's other structures and says other structures. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's like we're going down a historical lane today with regard to language and applications of what now is going on yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the older a property is the more confusion there's going to be in those documents. It's the way it is, cause you probably had three or four different people looking at it-over time and any time there was an addition a different inspector would go out and describe it as something else. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie excuse me, in my packet I only saw the C of 0 on the pool, I did not see a C of 0 that said pool and shed. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is none for the shed. JASON FAY : There is none. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just for the house the pool and the generator. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh I understood the applicant just said that there was a written document that said pool and shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim says that it might be on the inspection sheet rather than the CO. MEMBER DANTES : We have to pull the file. JASON FAY : I believe it might have been the town card. MEMBER DANTES : We can pull the file we can look. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so let's discuss this option because that's what we're required to do. You do have plenty of room to put a shed in a far more conforming well to build a pool house in a far more conforming bluff setback and yard setback, tell us why that is not an option for you. JASON FAY : That would be a (inaudible) to do something cause the buildable space to do something is nowhere near the pool the existing pool. MEMBER DANTES : Isn't the pool house need to be an X number of feet to a pool? MEMBER ACAMPORA : To a pool yeah. MEMBER DANTES : So to do it in a conforming location you would violate that (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now this is a new one for me. I did not know there was a requirement to be X number of feet MEMBER DANTES : Well .it (inaudible) says accessory to a swimming pool. So it's in a code conforming location how is it an accessory. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's still an accessory if it's a pool house, if it's got a half bath a changing room MEMBER DANTES : No I know but it would be on the other side of the property. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting JASON FAY : At that point we'd be in the house cause it just no place on the site plan that something like that would make sense. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No because it would be an obstruction to the rest of the east side of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah no I mean the argument is yes you can put it on the other side of the pool but it will be blocking all the views of the house. JASON FAY : It would be downhill. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah that would be another problem. MEMBER LEHNERT : You can move it farther landward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can move it a little bit away. MEMBER LEHNERT : In the same plain. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the other point I was making it's possible JASON FAY : But that's still within the 100 foot setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no that's fine but the side yard setback which is that little tiny 4 foot thing if the pool gets I mean you just change the patio move it over farther. JASON FAY : If that would be an option we were trying to work within the existing structures to be as compliant as possible but not bring something forward to you that is not an existing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what is it a block foundation? JASON FAY : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what it looked like to me right? MEMBER ACAMPORA : So would it be a demo? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it could be if you tried to move it, it could be a demo. JASON FAY : Yeah if we moved it, it definitely would be a demo. The structure is perfectly sound it's fine. There's just been years of neglect of the siding and exterior sheathing. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if it stays where it is then clearly what we're going to have to insist upon is that cause we don't know the picket fence the stockade fence rather that's over there now it looks like it's starting to deteriorate a bit you know it's not in the best of condition. Do you know if that's on your property? JASON FAY : That is on our property and a portion of that will be removed and replaced with a pool compliant post and wire fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ah so you're proposing to remove that portion and that's where you want to put your pool fence. JASON FAY : Yeah CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so if we suggest that you need to revegetate once that's in place to block the view because a pool fence does not have to be solid. Are you putting up a solid one or JASON FAY : No it's wire, we will revegetate you know if we you know we can even run the pool fence legally right through the existing hedge but the hedge is also on our property and you wouldn't see it at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you can do that I mean if you can renovate while preserving because you know once you start digging that foundation the roof structure that hedgerow is going to be compromised. JASON FAY : Absolutely, we are proposing plumbing and what not but you know we would be doing a back outlet toilet and things of that nature so we don't have to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an outdoor shower so JASON FAY : Yeah so you don't have to go through the foundation in order to get (inaudible) water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep. Anything from anybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nope CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I do not have other questions. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT: I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES: Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye the motion carries. HEARING#7641—JANET MASTROPOLO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Janet Mastropolo #7641. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 28, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 6015 Peconic Bay Blvd. in Laurel. Is someone here? CHUCK THOMAS : Hi I'm Chuck Thomas Architect for the homeowner Janet. We're here to request permission to build a 16 x 24 garage in a non-compliant area on the lot. Where the existing house was built is set very far back off of Peconic Bay Blvd. and 127 feet back off the property and just with the configuration of the house and with the property to the west they had a detached garage and we thought this was the best location of the garage it would work best with our property without using up whatever space is left for what is considered rear yard and we also thought that it was gave a lot of consideration to the neighbor by placing this garage in close proximity and in line with theirs so it really has a minimal visual impact on June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting them. I don't believe this is going to create an undesirable change to the neighborhood cause as I said there is an existing garage on the property to the west, I know it's looked at differently on waterfront properties but all along Peconic Bay Blvd. in that area there are accessory structures in the front yard. So I'm here to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, I would point out that although you're absolutely right this place is full of accessory garages all up and down Peconic Bay Blvd. the two neighbors on either side have accessory garages and although the proposed location on the subject property is in line with them both of theirs are in their rear yard. CHUCK THOMAS : I understand that and that's based on our existing house location and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : so it leaves you very little rear yard. CHUCK THOMAS : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would that large oak tree there have to be cut down? CHUCK THOMAS : Is it the Oak tree or the Beech tree? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not sure. MEMBER LEHNERT : There are a bunch of trees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's plenty in.the back but I'm just talking about the one the big one I think that's an oak. CHUCK THOMAS : The big one we're going to keep and we're going to go around that. There's two smaller trees in the area where the garage is going to be built, they would have to come out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By any chance do you have any opportunity to check out to see if there are any prior decisions that the Zoning Board made for accessory structures in a side yard up and down Peconic Bay Blvd.?There probably is. MEMBER DANTES :Those would be waterfront probably. MEMBER LEHNERT : (inaudible) across the street. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They might be on the waterside. MEMBER DANTES : We granted variances on the other side too though. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we also granted something in a side yard on the waterside but it's still not conforming. If it's in a side yard it's not conforming, on a waterfront it can be in a front yard or a rear yard depending on bluff setback or(inaudible). MEMBER LEHNERT : The denial doesn't say it's in the front yard or the side yard, it says other than the rear yard. So is there a way to get the garage at least into the side yard? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's partially in the side yard. Well you know what, if you pushed it back even farther unless you put it really in the rear yard it's still going to be in a side yard. MEMBER LEHNERT: I'm just thinking out loud, anything other than a front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah well it's probably better placed MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's a long location the house is set really he said 127 feet that's (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What impact is that going to have on anybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nobody MEMBER LEHNERT : It's not especially with the neighbor's garage right there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Although one of your neighbors did submit a letter objecting indicating the request to conform to the code. Okay let's see, Nick do you have any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on the Board have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience? Okay then motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7642—LYLE and KATHLEEN GIRANDOLA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Lyle and Kathleen Girandola #7642. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 6, 2021 amended.January 31, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling and construct additions and alterations to an existing accessory garage at 1) dwelling located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) dwelling located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 35 feet, 3) accessory garage located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 3040 Peconic Bay Blvd. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Laurel. Here you are again, at least we scheduled two in a row for you instead of one in the morning and one in the afternoon. CHUCK THOMAS : I do appreciate the convenience. Chuck Thomas Architect for the applicant Lyle and Kathleen. So as you just read off we are looking to demolish the existing house that has non-conforming setbacks on the west we're at 3.8 feet and the east we're 9 feet. We're looking to remove that house and construct a new house. The new house we're looking to rotate it so it's parallel with the property lines and then increase the setbacks to bring it more into conformity more in line with setbacks that are generally seen on these small lots along the boulevard. Our total setback to the west 10.5 up from the 3.8 and to the east we're proposing 12.4 up from the 9 feet. Additionally we're also pushing the house further away from the bulkhead/wetlands water's edge to give more space. It also increases the view quarters from the properties on either side we would have kept the house up (inaudible). The existing garage is concrete block with a low pitched roof on it and when we were designing the house Kathleen kept saying it's not going to look the garage is not going to look like the house it's going to look like it doesn't belong and she was right. So we came up with the modified roof design, we're not changing the exterior wall heights, we're not changing the foundation, we're not changing the (inaudible) on the side. We're going to remove the roof June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting and construct a new roof on it to try and capture some of the design elements of the main house onto the garage. At the end of the garage renovation the garage will be 17 foot 10 high. There would not be enough space upstairs to have habitable space, living space anything. The maximum height underneath the ridge would be 7 foot 6 from that point (inaudible) in either direction. So it's not a standard living space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN So what are you planning to have in that garage other than electric, anything? CHUCK THOMAS : We are putting in a half bathroom and that was part of our application to the Health Department which is basically approved subject to the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking at storage only with a half bath. CHUCK THOMAS : Half bath on the first floor. There's no stairs to a second floor, there is no there is not enough height for a second floor. I attached drawings I'm sure you all have them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep we have them, so one floor. CHUCK THOMAS : Correct MEMBER DANTES : Did you pull any prior variances for Peconic Bay Blvd.? CHUCK THOMAS : I have. MEMBER DANTES : Are they in here? CHUCH THOMAS : Oh I did not attach it to this. I got one basically right across the street from my last application for Bill Froelich it mirrors this application and then there was a house actually right next to that Mary Hoeltzel I did an application for her as well a little different than this but these setbacks are more generous than that one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you send those to us? CHUCK THOMAS : Sure CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Prior decisions really help us to find the character of a neighborhood and were also precedent so it's always very useful for us. We know these lots very well, they're what we call railroad lots I mean they're just very narrow and very long and so to build anything that's even remotely feasible for today's notion of family living you don't June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting want to have a 12 foot wide house. I mean that would be back to a New York City where I lived. CHUCK THOMAS : It is always as you all know it's the balance of quality of life your life living there and the impact that you're going to have on your neighbors and that's something we try to balance. MEMBER DANTES : Really I mean the houses there now have less of a setback than the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's right. CHUCK THOMAS : Far less than in minimum setback and total setback so we're increasing our total setback and the setback on each side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And a 32 foot wide house is not egregious.. CHUCK THOMAS : It's the same width as the house that's there now so basically that was one of my goals was to see if I could take that space and rotate it and see if I can get the setbacks where I thought would be consistent and reasonable with what was going on around and then still get the amount space inside that we were looking for. MEMBER LEHNERT : Pretty common up and down that street. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In fact it kind of defines the neighborhood. Okay I have no further questions, anybody on Zoom Liz? MEMBER LEHNERT : We have somebody in the audience. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to see if any of the Board Members have questions. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay please come forward and state your name please. MARTIN ROMANELLI : Hi Martin Romanelli I'm actually the owner of the property to the east my mother's neighbor and actually you answered my question. I just got this paper the other day (inaudible) but you know my mom. I have no problem with the house being setback, actually it's their house and their view, I had a question on the garage you pretty much answered it. The garage has been there, it's right on the property line we were just concerned it was going to be June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Higher MARTIN ROMANELLI : Higher or anything like that so (inaudible) listen to that and I got this last night so I am okay with everything as long as there's no higher elevation on the garage or anything like that. CHUCK THOMAS : So the garage is going to be higher, it's going to be 3 % feet higher so the existing height is going to be 14.6 we're going to be 17.10. So I just wanted to be absolutely MARTIN ROMANELLI : But there's no living space CHCUK THOMAS :There's no ability for living space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything from anybody else? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries we'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7630,#7631 &#7632—SV GREENPORT LLC, dba SOUND VIEW GREENPORT CHAIRPERSON. WEISMAN : There are three application which were all heard together and adjourned to today's date because we were waiting to have the applicant was working with the Planning Department on some safety issues and you know where the signs could best be and what their recommendations were and how big they should be and to date we have not received anything from the Planning Board. They have indicated that they require more time. So I wanted to ask the applicant we're going to have to adjourn this again until we get those June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting comments because we can't (inaudible) without them and I know that that applicant wanted to be working with the Planning Board anyway on hearing this out. Okay hi Tommy, so do you think you're likely to have things resolved by July? Otherwise instead of keep doing this we can adjourn this to August and then be sure that we have comments by then but I'm looking to you for what you feel your you know expecting in terms of when you're going to get comments from Planning. TOMMY NAPLES : Yeah I think July should be reasonable. I know the Planning Board mentioned to us just last week or earlier this week last week that they didn't forget about the comments to the ZBA and so we expected that that was probably coming whether before today or they still needed additional time. It sounds like you didn't get a letter this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we didn't we just checked with them to see if they had written them but they hadn't written them so TOMMY NAPLES : I mean I know there's still some things they're working out aside from the signs with us but we weren't notified that anything outside of this was holding their comments to you for the ZBA so if it's easier for us to follow up with them directly we can try and get some timing from them so we can make sure July is reasonable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'll tell you what then, let me do this I'll make a motion to adjourn all three of those applications to the July Public Hearing what date is that? BOARD SECRETARY : 7th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN July 7th and why don't you let our office know when you know and that way if for some reason we're not going to get them say a week or so before the hearing so that we have time to read them and go out and look at the property again let us know and just make a request to adjourn it to August and then you won't even have to show up and we'll just adjourn it to August. We're just trying to work this out so that you can do what you need to do with that and then we can make a determination. So why don't we just do that, go for July but if you think things are not forthcoming by then then just let the office know and make just shoot an email saying we request that you adjourn it to you know the following month and we'll handle it that way. Okay does that make sense to everybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn application #7630, #7631 and #7632 to July 7th Public Hearing. Is there a second? June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye okay thank you. TOMMY NAPLES : Okay we'll reach out to our Planning Board contacts and try to get back to Elizabeth and Donna early this month to make sure we should be kept there or if it needs additional time. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Tommy you're going to need to post again so we're going to have signs for you okay? TOMMY NAPLES : Okay just send us a note and we'll work it out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thanks very much. So we have two resolutions one for the next Regular Meeting of Public Hearings to be held Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. so moved is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held Thursday, May 19, 2022 so moved, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Okay anything else from the Board? Motion to close the meeting is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, okay Liz you can stop recording and lock the meeting. June 2, 2022 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE :June 13, 2022