Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/07/2022 Hearing v 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 July 7, 2022 10:44 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member (Vice Chair) KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JOHN BURKE—Deputy Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Jotas Corporation#7637 (Decision) 3 Katherine Hubbard #7607SE (Decision) 4 Richard George and Laura McGrath #7644 5 - 6 Melissa Hobley#7645 6 - 21 Melissa Hobley and Paul Yau #7646SE 6 - 21 Barbara Bell #7647 22 - 28 Patrick and Diane Severson #7648 28 - 30 Kostas Koukoudakis #7650SE 30- 34 Tim and Nancy Burke #7651 34-41 Sam Karalis#7643 41-43 Thomas Kennedy#7654 44- 50 Further Out East—C/O Tom Dowling#7655 50- 69 July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :-Good morning everyone, let me start with an apology for the delay we had to work around the court's schedule there was an arraignment this morning oh I don't know what it was but they were in here working on something so we are delayed but we'll move as quickly and appropriately as we can. I'd like to welcome you to the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for Thursday, July 7, 2022 we are here and also on Zoom and I'm going to ask before we get started Liz would you please go ahead and explain to anyone on Zoom how they can participate if they chose to. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie, good morning everyone. If anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask that you raise your hand. 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. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before we open up this meeting I'd like to ask all of you to rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. We have already discussed Work Session items so I will go right into the SEQR resolutions. Declaring the following applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 c including the following: Richard George and Laura McGrath, Melissa Hobley, Melissa Hobley and Paul Yau, Barbara Bell, Patrick and Diane Severson, Kostas Koukoudakis, Tim and Nancy Burke, Sam Karalis, Thomas Kennedy, Further Out East c/o Tom Dowling, 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. We have two decisions before us, let's review them briefly before we vote you all have copies and everyone has read both of them. The first one is JOTAS CORPORATION application 7637. This is for an enlargement for a legally existing apartment by attaching it to a legally existing accessory structure in a commercial building in Orient. We've gone through all of the prior variance relief by the Board of Appeals, we've gone through prior decisions and Certificates of Occupancy on the subject property and July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting it's really basically a setback variance on an existing historic accessory structure that will not be moved and cannot be moved but will be attached to an apartment. Does anyone have any comments? We have three conditions on here, one the IA system for a commercial building and the maintenance of an existing solid wood fence along the property line which is the subject of the variance setback. Are there any comments? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you ready to vote? MEMBER DANTES : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I'm going to make the motion to grant the variances as applied for and shown on the site plan dated May 2, 2021 and architectural drawings dated April 13, 2021 prepared by Hideaki Arizumi Architect. 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. Now we have Katherine Hubbard #7607SE, this is for an accessory apartment in an accessory structure still under construction. We reviewed all of the standards required for accessory apartments in accessory structures and basically have concluded that there is reason to believe based on the Board's observation, comments made on site by the applicant's sister and affidavits sworn witness affidavit by the Building Inspector that the principle building is not in compliance with its Certificate of Occupancy. There is the possibility of the existence of a second apartment in the principle dwelling which therefore nullifies this right to an accessory apartment in an accessory structure. Is there any discussion about this before we vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : No discussion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so then what we have here is a draft proposing to deny the Special Exception Permit as applied for. July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Pat, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7644—RICHARD GEORGE and LAURA MCGRATH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Richard George and Laura McGrath #7644. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 10, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory pergola at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 3050 Fairway Drive in Cutchogue. So this is a proposed pergola in a side yard over an existing patio by a 20 foot by 14 foot pool and what would you like us to know about this?The code requires it in a rear yard cause this is in a side yard. EILEEN WINGATE : Well it's the side yard technically but if you go back to the site plan just because they're at the end of the road and they chose to run the driveway up the side and they tilted the house it's a very peculiar situation where the pergola ended up in the side yard because the house does not face the street. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right and it's at the end of a dead end of a golf course. EILEEN WINGATE : Yes it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's surrounded by dense landscaping. EILEEN WINGATE : Yes it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there really is no visual impact on anyone, no one is even going to drive by it.Any questions from the Board? Oh good you got the site plan up. MEMBER DANTES :1 think it's pretty benign. July 7,2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a very unique property and I agree it's very benign. Anything from the Board Members? MEMBER LEHNERT : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone on Zoom Liz? No, anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? EILEEN WINGATE : We have the owners here if you'd like to meet them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi. No I think it's a very straightforward matter, it's very minor. I don't have any further questions and if there's no one else who wants to questions the application I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7645 &76465E—HOBLEY, MELISSA& HOBLEY, MELISSA and YAU, PAUL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application actually the same property owner but there are two applications, one is for a variance the other is for a Special Exception. I'm going to read both of them into the record so we can open them at the same time which it makes sense to do that they're very interrelated. The first is Melissa Hobley#7645. This is request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's February 10, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing accessory garage at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 2826 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Laurel. The next July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting application is for Melissa Hobley and Paul Yau #7646 SE a Special Exception. The applicant request a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-136(13). The applicant is the owner of subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 2826 Peconic Bay Blvd (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Laurel. Is there someone here to represent the applications? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good morning Board thank you for having me, Anthony Portillo for the applicants. So I guess the first is the variance. So our request is to expand onto the existing building and we're not increasing the non-compliance on the front yard or the side yard. The increase of the envelope is actually towards the rear yard of the lot and then on the side yard we're holding what the existing side yard is currently on the existing garage. So that isn't changing so there's no really increase in non-compliance we're way under our lot coverage. We are proposing a 20 foot building at 1,200 sq. ft. footprint, that's basically that. I also for the Board's record, I printed out eight copies if I can handed to you guys now, we were able to find an approved variance at two houses down for a similar type of structure. On top of that we just did a lot of research on Peconic Bay Blvd. on that side of Peconic Bay Blvd. especially and it's pretty common that you have these structures in the front yard because the main dwelling is on the waterside of the lot so I thought that was relevant to this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to submit them Anthony? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While you're doing that let me just point out that what we're talking about here. It's really a paper road it's a right of way, it's a front yard setback proposed at 4 feet which is what's existing. The code does require a 40 foot front yard setback but this is an unusual front yard. The second variance is for a side yard setback at 4.1 foot and the code requires 15 feet and I think that's it on the variance. With regard to the apartment that's proposed we have in our record the 2020 tax return submitted showing the address as the principle residence ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Melissa Hobley's driver's license with an address, voters registrations, a letter from PSEG bill, STAR exemption they're not qualified for based on income, birth certificate to indicate the lease is to her mother. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one thing I did notice is the signatures on the lease and the signature on something else is from the same person not necessarily the mother but that's July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting pretty minor. It's also been determined to be LWRP consistent, I don't know if you got Mark's review or not. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes I did receive it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what the Board has, we've all been out as you know to the property. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I just want to clarify the plan, as you can see we are trying to get three parking stalls. They do have a current parking in the main house a current garage but it's really not that accessible and it's not really useful parking currently so the idea of three parking stalls is for Mrs. Hobley and her husband and the mother to basically use this garage. So two spots are for the main dwelling and then the extra spot is going to utilized by the mother that's living in the accessory unit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did have one question, you're proposing to have a second story ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's really hard to determine whether the height will have any visual impact it certainly doesn't now but when you add a second story you know it was hard to see the adjacent property really it doesn't appear to have any visual impact but can you address that? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, actually I think you guys might have the same photo, photo number six and photo number seven. So unfortunately I requested a letter and they were going to write the letter I just didn't get in time from the neighbor the property to the west which is the Cifarelli's and I mean verbally they told me that they had no issue with the extension I'm sure I can get the letter and you know provide it to the office but I think if you look at where the garage sits and kind of the foliage around the area it's kind of tucked in the corner. I mean everything is pretty fully grown there and I think it would be pretty much covered and not really a visual impact on adjacent properties. The other thing is, on the Cifarelli residence the property to the west that's a driveway that comes down there and then the house that's in the rear on their property is actually encroaching on the other side yard so it's really close to that side yard. Then the main house is it's pretty much parallel to the dwelling the (inaudible) so it's really not like in line with another building or structure. I don't see that property really ever having a structure on that side adjacent to that property line because of just how that's a right of way on the Cifarelli property and that's how you enter those two properties so that's just going to be the site demographics forever in my opinion. July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we know you know the properties really well we went through all the Cifarrelli variances and ANTHONY PORTILLO : And I rented the house next to Cifarelli to the west as well which has a very big garage in the front yard I rented that after college twenty years ago so I know these three houses pretty well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I would say so. ANTHONY PORTILLO : But they're all that same sort of thing where like you know they have a long driveway kind of coming up, this isn't necessarily a flagged lot but they have the right of way to the Hollys to get into their property so you're coming pretty far off of Peconic Bay Blvd. to enter the site. It's sort of the same thing on the Cifarelli's side and then the property also to the west it's kind of sort of alignment you know throughout right there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just looking to see where the elevations are. What's the height? ANTHONY PORTILLO : We kept it to an 8 foot ceiling height on the second floor and I tried to reduce the pitch as much as possible to allow for a hip roof. I was trying to not that egregious CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Move it away from the property line. ANTHONY PORTILLO : As much as possible yeah. You can see I really tried to minimize the roof height to the (inaudible) as possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The whole thing to the ridge is 20 feet is that right? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz did you want to say something? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Yes, I spoke with Mike he's been busy but he's on the boat he's on Fishers Island, he wants me to let you know the square footage on the apartment is over, it's 1,079 sq. ft. he's coming up with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is it? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : 1,079 sq. ft. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So that is not incorrect but if you read our plan the habitable space that we're proposing is 719 sq. ft. We are showing an unheated, unfinished storage room that's off of the apartment now if I was thinking about this, if there's a problem from the Board about July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting having that access through the apartment I think we're all it would be okay to put a hatch let's say in the garage and not have a door off of the apartment. That's where I think Mike is getting that extra square footage but that's not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah he's just looking at square footage because you know I know what the plans say but it's also very easy to convert that to anything you want. I think that's a very good idea what do you think Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think also wouldn't it need to be just exposed rafters? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea unfinished. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The insulation would go on the face of the interior wall there and I'll take the door out and put a hatch underneath so that it's not you know an easy change to that space. There's no intention but just to make it less accessible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then we're talking about your saying 719 sq. ft. of habitable space. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is in conformance to code. ANTHONY PORTILLO : A one bedroom, one bathroom small laundry closet and basically an open living floor plan and a pneumatic elevator because the mom is elderly going to have trouble going up and down the stairs. BOARD ASSISTANT : What's the square footage of the storage space do you know off hand? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The storage, I don't I can tell you real quick it's approximately 169, 170 sq. ft. and then you have the staircase as well which was deducted from the habitable square footage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm alright with that, are you okay Board Members? Does anyone have any MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Liz. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I also want to mention that we do have the application to the Health Department we're designing a separate IA system for the accessory apartment and currently just we're waiting for approval from the Board because the Health Department requires us to July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting have a signed affidavit from the Building Department to move forward with the application. We have designed the system and submitted that application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're going to lose the pitch and putt unfortunately I see. It's kind of cute I have to say. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think they want the mother-in-law close by the children and stuff so that's part of the reason I'm sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any questions Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone on Zoom Liz?Anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Please come forward. MEMBER DANTES : Which parcel to your clients live on Pat, the one to the north or the one it's not the Cifarelli's? PAT MOORE : No it's part of the four lot subdivision. In fact of the homeowners in that subdivision my clients are one in have another one that another family member not family member another owner of the properties is here as well and then there's an adjacent property owner who is here as well. MEMBER DANTES : It's not a neighbor? PAT MOORE : Yes we are neighbors to the east one of the four the parcel is one of four. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is that the Bayfront parcel or PAT MOORE : Yes July 7,2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES But not the' neighbor to the north and not the neighbor to the west that are most affected by the application. PAT MOORE : Cifarelli is to the west they're not here. MEMBER DANTES : Not the one to the north. PAT MOORE : The neighbor to yes they're the neighbor to the north. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So is Exhibit 1 these four lot subdivision? PAT MOORE : I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exhibit 1 that you submitted here, that's the four lot subdivision? PAT MOORE : Correct yes. This is a subdivision that was approved by the Zoning Board back in the sixties in '66. It also got 280A approval in order to build one of the houses it wasn't clear it was a general 280A approval so I attached the subdivision map from the Zoning Board. In fact my client's house the Moore house which was on the center of the property on this map relocated and placed on one of the lots the lot to the lot number four, the lot to the east and the house was moved there. So their house is actually the relocated house that was on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So lot four. PAT MOORE : Lot four is my client. Lot two is present, the owner is here and the adjacent Gatehouse,they're here as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and the subject lot is? PAT MOORE : Lot three.The pre-existing garage is the subject of this application is showing on Lot three. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep got it thank you. PAT MOORE : We've got our bearings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's a good way to start. PAT MOORE : So I've outlined our issues eight points of them and we've already discussed the first point as far as who's who on this application. Each lot here is subject to Covenants and Restrictions which are I list four items in the Covenants I've attached Exhibit 2 are the deeds the original deeds that went from the developer G. Harvey Moore, Mastropolo is my client's predecessor in title and the other deed that I attached is the applicant's predecessor in title July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting which is (inaudible). So you can see that, I just provided the two but all four lots of the subdivision all have the same Covenant. The first Covenant is consideration of the minimum size and cost of the house, the second issue is the use of the property for only one single family dwelling. Additionally the four lots share the cost of the maintenance of the snow removal and repair of the road that is an important point here as far as the use of the road and the maintenance of the (inaudible) and finally all the lots have that similar restriction. The concern that my client raised and I've heard from the other neighbors is that the fact there is a pre-existing garage and the size of the garage is not an issue as far as remaining as a pre- existing and if the family wanted to convert the pre-existing garage to make the apartment that too would not be objectionable. When this was described verbally by the family that they wanted to put in an apartment for mom the theory was fine there was no issue. It's when we got to the details of the design that the proposed structure that it became very concerning for the neighbors and my clients. From the testimony the plan is substantially larger than the code would allow as I interpreted and it was very difficult I had small plans to refer to so the square footage that I calculated may be a little bit off I was using the applicant's application to come to the square footage but the first point is as far as the plan if they wanted to convert the one story garage which is 19 by 22 with a one and a half bay no issue but the fact it that they're actually more than quadrupling the overall square footage of this property. It's doubling the size of the existing to 1,200 and placing a full second story. So when you add up the square footage (inaudible) it's 2,400 in total. I would also point out that the plans show that the hip roof was 9 foot ceiling height it's not 8 foot ceiling height so I don't know if that's the testimony and the plans match on that issue. With respect to the habitable space I understand that from the testimony that Mike Verity provided a review which he calculated 1,079 sq.ft., I calculated according to the paperwork it was talking about 1,200 with the deck I calculated 719 habitable space of the accessory apartment somewhere around there but in any case I'll rely on the Building Department which is fine and I think you guys all identify the main concern which is that extra storage space that throws the lot coverage and definition of livable floor area that is calculated in the livable floor area and really this apartment requires redesign. There was some redesign going at the podium but I think more importantly for my client's and the neighbors is the fact that it's on the second floor and will impact the privacy of the individual properties. This is a very small kind of mini community, the four lots for the most part are own little neighborhood and when you're dealing with the character of the neighborhood you really have to look specifically at these four lots. So again that was a concern that they raised. The fact that well the size of this structure the State building code says once you reach 850 sq. ft. it's now a single family dwelling, the Covenants say you can't have two single family dwellings on this property. It will impact the character of the neighborhood but in particular it would be in violation of the Covenants. Now I know legally you don't enforce private Covenants but nevertheless we force the neighborhood to become July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting the enforcers civil action on Covenants. So we want to make sure that the apartment is modest in size and appropriate and what's been proposed presently in our opinion is not. MEMBER DANTES : What's the code permitted maximum accessory structure size for? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 750 MEMBER DANTES : For accessory structure total or just for the apartment? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Apartment MEMBER DANTES : What's the accessory structure permitted? PAT MOORE : So let's go let me get to that because that's very MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) Notice of Disapproval? PAT MOORE : Yeah there's actually other issues here with respect to the code violation or code issues. Depending on the size of the property a structure can only be of a certain size accessory structure size, I think that's what is being asked. What the code has a limitation well limitation on second floor which is the dormer size and the roofline what's being proposed is really a full second story so we're not dealing with the dormers up to eighty percent of the roof width. So again the design just does not match what the code restrictions that should be applied. I'm hoping that these issues won't even be an issue because if you keep everything on the first floor then the roofline and the dormers will no longer be applicable. I provided the setbacks that are applicable here. In this case the lot size is a little difficult also to determine because we have buildable area versus non-buildable area. You have a waterfront property and when you have bulkheads you now eat into the buildable area. I couldn't tell from the paperwork that was submitted whether that calculation was accurate or not. If the lot is under 20,000 there are closer setbacks but there's also greater limitations on the size of an accessory structure. So that fact was just I couldn't verify, I did not see any of the applicant's paperwork refer to what is the buildable area of this parcel. I don't know that that was actually calculated. I think it was based on the deed size but you have various sizes here. If you look at the match when the lot was created it professes to be 26,000 sq. ft. but again I don't know how that number gets translated today. Going back to the issue of the character of the neighborhood and other variances, I did do a lot of homework on that. I attached Exhibit 3 1 listed every single variance that's been granted in the 128-2, 128-6, tax lot book. When you read through all the variances there really aren't any for this type of structure, you can have accessory apartment but certainly as far as expanding a two story accessory building. There were very few applications with respect to that and I actually provided detail on two applications, the one that you just recently had in June of'22 that was very recent Girandola. July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting Girandola didn't ask for it asked for a garage which was just a redesign of the roofline and I believe the Board ultimately granted the approval but put conditions on the roofline and the use of the storage space to make sure that it would not be converted to livable floor area or any livable use. So the Girandola case is probably the closest that I found towards that equated to the size of the proposed structure. The other application was Froehlich which is an older application and that one went back and forth and back and forth there was a lot of review of that application. Froehlich that was cited by the Girandola case, when you go and look at the actual decision the variance was primarily the variance that was listed on Girandola was applicable to the primary structure not to the accessory structure. There was an older case in Froehlich that dealt specifically with the accessory structure and that one again limited the size of the accessory structure. They were demolishing the house and they were putting in a new garage in and the Board ultimately approved a garage but in the deliberations of that decision and I highlight the language for you, the Board denied the relief requested and gave alternate relief but in the denial said existing oversized garage it says not shown to be characteristic of the neighborhood that's the property that's two houses from this property. I think it's even more relevant when you have an enclave of private road of private homes. So I would certainly point that out that it does not support the application that's before this Board. Cifarelli is another file that had that was my application so I'm very familiar with it and the Board denied the accessory structures that in the Cifarelli case you have a pre-existing three lot subdivision where there's a waterfront house another house in the center and the Cifarelli's use the front lot the road front house road front lot as the back yard and they had placed their accessory structures on that parcel. This was a shed that was old but didn't have a Pre-CO and they redid it and they put up a pergola and ultimately the Board denied all of the variances that were requested. MEMBER LEHNERT : Well Pat wasn't that a Use Variance because there was no primary structure on the property. PAT MOORE : Yes it was a combination, it was area variances and use variances and you're right it was accessories without primaries. It was comparable and the lots were how they were designed so I use that case similar in design to the subject property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just interject for a second, it would appear that for this particular size lot a maximum square footage is 1,200 for an accessory structure and it is on the site plan. PAT MOORE : Okay good. I think I refer to it as a 1,200 being the max also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just confirming. July 7,2022 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Okay thank you. So for all the reasons that I've cited here we think the application should be modified. If the family wants to have mother living on the property certainly there's no objection to that it's just the design to the structure. So we would ask the Board to not grant the variances that are requested but certainly ask the applicant to go back and take a look another look at the design of the proposed garage. Thank you. I have other members that might be interested in speaking so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine let them speak but I want to let Anthony address the concerns here. DAN LEBLOND : Hi my name is Dan Leblond I'm the neighbor directly to the east on the waterfront side so I think this impacts me pretty significantly. It was a lot for us to decide to kind of talk at this hearing because frankly we really want to enjoy our neighbors, we've had a great relationship with them. The four houses have a very good relationship but we felt a need to speak out. The way this was originally described to us was a small apartment for mom. I will tell you that a 2,400 sq. ft. structure does not feel like a small structure for mom. It feels like a second residence on that particular property. In fact 2.400 sq. ft. is larger than two of the houses on the four lot subdivision. It is really very big. So even if you remove that room at 180 sq. ft., even if you remove the roof deck which is a little weird that there's a second story roof deck even if you remove that at 130 sq. ft. you're still way over the 1,200 sq. ft. maximum for a secondary structure. I will also say that I don't really understand why it has to be a two story structure. I understand they want an apartment for mom, that is fine that is well within their right. She's a lovely woman frankly but it doesn't meet the dormer requirements, it doesn't meet you know a second story dormer livable space should be set up. So I'm not sure with all of these issues how it could be approved with neighbors objecting to it. I don't you know that's just my feeling. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your comments, did you want to say anything? AMY LEBLOND : Yeah I'm Dan's wife Amy and I just think it also comes down to privacy. We spend a lot of time in our yard we all do and having a second story structure where you feel like someone is kind of peering at you. I know that that's not we reached out (inaudible) because I didn't really understand the plans when I went online and I read them myself so we asked her to speak here because I can't explain code or how many square foot something should be but I just think on a personal level we do function like a small neighborhood there and this adds another dynamic to it. There are right of ways and there is access to a beach which is shared space which now you're adding a fifth structure into which it wasn't designed our covenant says four structures and I understand that the town definition of a dwelling is slightly different but you're giving an opportunity for another group of people to then be July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting sharing this small area on the beach in this right of way which is two and half feet on our property and two and a half feet on the Hobley property. DAN LEBLOND : And.the beach is 25 feet onto our property, 22 % feet onto our property and 22 %feet onto their property. AMY LEBLOND : So I just think it's a very complicated dynamic. I just wanted the Board to understand this isn't simply four separate neighbors, to a certain extent I think we function as a unit somewhat you know with our shared driveway and our shared pathway to the beach and our shared beach access. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else wanting to address the Board? ROBERT GATEHOUSE : Robert Gatehouse I'm here with my wife Susan. We're neighbors of the LeBlonds and also the Girandola's who got the variance for their garage. The variance of the Girandola's we didn't even come to the hearing. It was obvious they wanted to change the roofline to match the new house and we weren't opposed to them. I know the Romanelli's didn't understand that and they're not opposed to that. It's really not going to change anything it's actually going to improve the appearance of the lot. I've lived on this lot my whole family has had this lot that we live on for close to a hundred years. I was there before the first subdivision, I was there when this existing garage was there. We can't even see it now from our house. I'm not opposed to that garage there, I'm not opposed that they want to change that garage to living quarters for their mother but to go and put a second story on, it's going to change the whole feel of the neighborhood it doesn't fit in with what's there. I know it says it does but no it doesn't at all fit in with what exists and therefore we object to the proposed plan.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else? Anthony do you want to address the Board in response to any of things you've heard? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I appreciate the comments it would have been nice to maybe hear some of this prior to the hearing and I would have (inaudible) different approach right now. The first thing I want to address is it just might be my mistake or it could be a typo it's supposed to be an eight foot ceiling height. So that changes the roof height I'll adjust that on the plans and make it an eight foot ceiling and just the past comment that I was redesigning on site here unfortunately that's something I do I was thinking about it, if you put a door there it doesn't make sense I'm sure if the Board and for the town it looks like it's an easy way to convert that space so I was trying to avoid that and I'm sorry that I said that. So I just want to concentrate on the facts here, our variance request is for the front yard and in the side yard. We're not really talking about height and we're not talking about the size of the building July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting because we are in compliance with what the zoning allows. Just to state too we included that second floor deck which is a pole and beam structure in our 1,200 sq. ft. calculation. So the structure itself is actually excluding that deck just to be clear but I think a conversation with the Building Department they asked us to include it at the 1,200 we were going to propose it that way. That's why it's included in the 1,200 sq. ft. So if adjusting the height I mean to speak to that, I think everyone is talking about the dormer rule I don't know it off the top of my head unfortunately I don't have the town code in front of me but I believe it's eighty percent and that's if you're proposing dormers. We're not necessarily proposing dormer here because if we're meeting our height requirements on accessory structure we don't need dormers and I think that that's only when a dormer is needed to create a little space to get your proper ceiling heights. Taking into consideration what the neighbors are saying again I wish I knew this a little earlier the we probably would have reflected a little bit of our design strategy or we would have had a different design strategy I mean I'm fine speaking with the owners about these things and maybe trying to get the ridge line down to like 18 feet but again I don't think we can I don't think the size of the structure and the height if it's not a variance issue should be part of the decision. I mean the request is that the addition that we're adding as I said earlier is not increasing the non-compliance it's actually further away from the front yard property line and the side yard already is at 4.1 we're not increasing that we're following the line so I don't think the Board's decision should be based on something that we're allowed. If we're allowed to do those other things the decision should just be purely based on well are we going to allow the structure to be built with these setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I will say this, it sounds like you have a very nice community and there is good feelings all the way around. The reason I asked you about the height was because even though the setback remains the same when you put a second story on something there is a greater visual impact, there is an increase in the degree of non- conformity which is what the Walz decision basically confirmed many years ago. So there is some veracity to the fact that this could have a much greater visual impact than what perhaps you intended. You do have room, it's a large lot and I think it's probably advisable for you to talk to your clients. I know there you would be a reasonable cooperative person in general and see what can be done about these things to their satisfaction and the neighbor's satisfaction. It's clear that there's not an objection to the apartment and you have certainly room to expand at the ground level if you would have to have a garage and an apartment you can still likely do that on one level and do it in a way that does not require a variance for the overall size of the accessory structure. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure July 7,2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Having said that what do you think? Does the Board think that sounds reasonable any comments or questions you want to make right now or ask? MEMBER DANTES : I'm reading the code and I don't really understand is 1,200 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Total accessory structure MEMBER DANTES : Right but does that include both stories or is that just first story? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it would be the first and second story it would be the total square footage of the accessory structure not just the footprint. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think it's the footprint. MEMBER DANTES :That's what I can't figure out reading the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Footprint? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's the footprint that's the way it would be determined so that's why the second level is not considered part of the 1,200 if you're looking at the zoning in that sentence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the other thing,though is that the proposed addition is at the same side yard setback right it's got a bigger front yard setback. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's in line with the existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It could be slid way over further possibly so the setback is much, much greater so that there would not be something looming over that shared there's a lot of ways you could do it the Board is not here to redesign this. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No, no, no I don't want to redesign but just to state a fact here shifting it over actually I think it impedes more onto the neighbors that are here today. Keeping it in line is the Cifarelli lot line and in all honesty again I'm not arguing with anybody because I don't live there and if they feel this way they feel that way, it is tucked in the corner on that property and most of the housing there is up on the waterside so just again the demographics of how this is laid out that building to me doesn't really cause much visual impact except possibly the Cifarelli's in my opinion. Again I'm not here to argue with that and I do agree that having a conversation is important and I do think that the Hobley's probably want just as they said that they want to be friendly with their neighbors they're neighborly. I don't think a conversation is off the table I just think that the consideration that they do need some parking they would like some garage space so if we utilize the first floor for the habitable space then we're taking away them having any garage space. July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unless you lay out a garage space (inaudible). ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah I mean that's a possibility but then it's another building. MEMBER ACAMPORA :They have a garage in the primary residence correct? ANTHONY PORTILLO": There's one stall but it's not even a park able stall they put their storage for their beach stuff in there in all honesty, they don't park in that stall. They currently park in the stall in that garage but it's kind of a mess it's sort of a rundown building at this point. It needs to be repaired regardless. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we do this, why don't we let you have the opportunity to talk to the neighbors, talk to your clients see what if any changes you want to do it's not a requirement it's just a request from neighbors. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I agree with you, I think it's a (inaudible)for sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about we do this, Board Members unless you have any comments or questions right now we can adjourn this to next month so that everybody has time to look at some possibilities to see what ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm willing to explain any questions in regards to what we're proposing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean (inaudible) very well I'm sure those neighbors too. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Of course so I appreciate it if we can adjourn and I'll be back next month with a different design. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One other thing, if you can maybe verify I think there might be some confusion about the footprint versus the total square footage you know we discussed that strange closet you're going to add possibly a pull down stair but please verify with the Building Inspector relative to the stairwell and the bathrooms that I think is livable areas part of the counting against the 750 sq. ft. maximum apartment size. ANTHONY'PORTILLO : I'll verify, I thought mechanical and stairwell was did not the bathroom does count but okay I'll verify that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Please verify that (inaudible) obviously that terrace too would count as part of the footprint in believe. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It does but it wouldn't be counted towards the 750 sq. ft. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not to the 750 agreed but the total footprint. July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Agreed but we did put that as part of our footprint calculations. I can check I'll verify. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Including the staircase under the 750. ANTHONY PORTILLO : You got it. MEMBER LEHNERT : Do we need a date which the revised plans come in so that we don't get them the night before? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I think it would be helpful if we had a chance to study them, you know get it a week before. When's our next hearing date? BOARD ASSISTANT : August 4th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : August 4th can you do it in three weeks? ANTHONY PORTILLO : If we don't have it by then we'll ask you to adjourn another month. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright that makes sense. MEMBER LEHNERT : Just so that we don't get them the night before then we have to adjourn. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Leave it for August if I can get with the neighbors and my clients and we can come up with a compromise. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That works. Okay so if there aren't any more questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to August 4th and we'll let you know the time and if you need additional time let Kim know and we will put on we'll just simply adjourn it to the following month. Anything else from the Board, is there a second on that motion? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, okay see you next month. July 7,2022 Regular Meeting HEARING#7647— BARBARA BELL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Barbara Bell #7647. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280- 124 and the Building Inspector's February 17, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located Less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard (east) setback of 15 feet, 3) located less than the code required combined minimum side yard setback of 35 feet located at 1055 Soundview Ave. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent the application? Come to the podium and state your name. KEN ROBINS : Ken Robins good morning Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a what exactly is the bluff setback, the Notice of Disapproval just says less than 100 feet it's very hard on small plans to determine exactly what that bluff setback is. I can see the single side yard setback is 11 feet where the code requires 15 and a combined side yard is.30 where the code requires 35 foot minimum. So can you tell me what the actual bluff setback is? It looks as though it's just too small to read. I saw something that looked like 64.5 feet. MEMBER LEHNERT : That looks like the farthest point. KEN ROBINS :The farthest point was the Jacuzzi. MEMBER LEHNERT :The closest point is not even something like 341 think. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's really close but I couldn't tell what it was, do we know? MEMBER LEHNERT : It says 34 to the corner of the deck on the west side. MEMBER DANTES : You're right and 46 to the existing house and 36 is to the spa? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah and 34 is to the corner to the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 46 is to the house and what's to the spa? MEMBER LEHNERT : 38 it looks like. MEMBER DANTES : So the existing bluff setback is 46, am I reading that right? What's the existing bluff setback cause looking at the aerial there is something there now is that a new deck you're proposing or is that recreating the existing deck? July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting KEN ROBINS :The deck is already there and the Jacuzzi the spa. MEMBER DANTES : They're already there? KEN ROBINS : It's already there so what we're doing is on that front side of the house there we're raising the window height 18 inches and we're raising the roof so that they have a better view of the water because their kitchen is stepped up like a foot and a half so when you look out the windows you don't see much of the Sound so we're allowed to when there's a new kitchen to look out the windows and see MEMBER DANTES : So the deck is there it has and the spa, they all have C.O's? KEN ROBINS :They have C.O's yes. MEMBER DANTES : So you're here for an interior alteration basically? KEN ROBINS :Just basically we're lifting the roof 18 inches, putting windows in the front of the house and on the side balcony there's a cantilevered balcony right there where she's pointing right now. MEMBER LEHNERT : So you're not changing the footprint of the house. KEN ROBINS : Not changing the footprint at all. There's a covered terrace a stone deck that's pre-existing. MEMBER LEHNERT : But none of the setbacks are changing. KEN ROBINS : Correct nothing is changing. MEMBER DANTES : The covered terrace and lifting some windows basically. KEN ROBINS : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's that second story balcony you're proposing right? KEN ROBINS : Yes on the east side yes. The balcony is cantilevered nothing going into the ground. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's also by the way LWRP exempt meaning that there's no that's the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. We have to refer by law every single application that comes before us that is waterfront for their recommendation, see if you're in compliance with the policies or non-conforming or inconsistent with the policies of environmental protection that the town has in place and in this case there are some instances and yours was one of them where it is exempt from LWRP review. So you're in good shape with that, let me July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting simplify, you're fine. Also I should mention both of your side yards are heavily vegetated, very screened from neighbors. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There is also a ravine on the east side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You said everything on your property has a C.O? Is that true of the deck, the gazebo that's almost at the top of the bluff.There's a gazebo sitting right KEN ROBINS : I'm not sure about that I just know about the deck and the house part. MEMBER DANTES : You're going (inaudible) the Trustees right? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) even for the swimming pool it would normally indicate swimming pool, gazebo etc. so perhaps you could clarify which C of 0 covers which improvement. MEMBER DANTES : I think we can pull the file from (inaudible) 2207 one cause that would be cause it just says alterations to an existing single family dwelling as applied for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typical the Building Department we don't always get detailed information on what they're saying is okay. KEN ROBINS : The pool was done six years ago. MEMBER DANTES : We don't have that in our packets do we? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nor the gazebo nor the hot tub/spa. MEMBER DANTES : The spa and the deck should be C.O'd, the gazebo I don't know, sometimes the Trustees do those on their own. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can check with the Trustees office and see what they would have had to do something even if it was years and years ago. Has it been there a long time? KEN ROBINS : It's been there the Bells are like the third owners that have done work to the house and it's been there ever since I've been working there so like fifteen years. MEMBER LEHNERT : Well is that something we can just condition? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah sure we could. We don't want to hold you up for you know cause any delays or anything like that. When we grant approvals we always we have the right July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting to condition an approval and what we can simply do is say if the Board choses to grant this you know getting your windows in which doesn't seem to be a problem we can say that you need to at some point obtain if you don't already have it we'll find out approval for that gazebo from the Trustees. They're the ones that would have authority over that, we just want to make sure it's legit that it's legal that it is not causing any adverse impacts. It certainly a pleasant amenity but it has to be legal. So when you come before the Zoning Board we have to look at the entire premises everything that's going on, on it. Kim can you make a note or Donna to so we'll check and see what's in the record for Certificates of Occupancy on the property and we'll check and see what the Trustees have done anything with the gazebo and if there's any record on that. If not it will not hold up your variance for your windows but it will require that you either legalize that if the Trustees are what's required or remove it. KEN ROBINS : What if it already has a C.O? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it has a C.O. no problem at all. KEN ROBINS : So one of those three. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah so if you want to check and see what you can come up with and submit them to our office that would be great. You can go into the Building Department pull the files and go to Trustees and just submit everything you can on every structure on the property. KEN ROBINS : Okay MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If the gazebo does not have a C of 0 it would need an "as built". CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But then they would be back before the Zoning Board of Appeals. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might .be something that the Trustees can handle without our intervention if we've approved something and put it as a condition. That's not typically the way it goes but it doesn't mean we couldn't do it that way. I mean if they approve it or let's this is hypothetical it may be approved already. MEMBER LEHERT : But it's not in front of us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and it's not in front of us but we have to look at everything on the property when we look at approvals so. Okay so why don't you do this, can you take a little time and get things into Kim as'soon as you can and just check with Building and Trustees and see what's there cause we don't have everything we need in our packet relative to July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting Certificate of Occupancy. Sometimes they might have been included the gazebo but then you have to look at their notes, the Building Department will have sometimes they have notes from the Building Inspector as to what's included when they write a C.O. and they don't put it on there they just say improvements. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can you also submit the full copy of the survey with the surveyor's name and seal? It's not on here. OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : I believe it is it's just when we copied it the paper was huge so we had trouble copying it but I believe it's on there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can go into the office and look at it. Rob do you want to take that?Yes Liz. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : When the Building Department gives a Certificate of Occupancy when they say additions and alterations there is a survey that matches that Certificate of Occupancy, that's what they need to submit too. Even though they don't spell it on the Certificate it's the survey that shows everything that was approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you're right. MEMBER DANTES : We can pull that up right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we can pull it up. KEN ROBINS : Is it on there? MEMBER LEHNERT : This is just a full survey(inaudible) read it. MEMBER DANTES : We can just pull the file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For cost purposes often applicants don't submit a full size survey cause they cost our office duplicates they're this big. I mean I don't know about your eyes but this gray hair let me tell you something glasses or no glasses I can get out a magnifying glass and still wonder what that setback is. They're tiny they're really tiny and they're very hard to read. Sometimes we get Lucky and we get much more legible things but we need to know if we stamp something we need to make sure we know how we're reading it properly. Okay so are we good here? MEMBER DANTES : Close subject to receipt? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep, I'm going to make a motion oh is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this? Is there anybody on Zoom? Did you want to say something? July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting BARBARA BELL : I'm confused, can we order our windows? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Once you get approval for no, no one thing has nothing to do with the other. You are before us for raising your roof, putting on a balcony right, putting in higher windows. We can take action on that but we will also require that everything on your property be legal okay and we're investigating whether it is. So I don't think the windows are the problem and I'm not sure the others are a problem either it's just something we've raised so we can investigate and make sure it's all squeaky clean. MEMBER LEHNERT : All this will do is hold up your C.O. on the other end. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What happens is we will have a decision in two weeks from today that's the next time we meet that is over in the Annex like at 4 o'clock, 5 o'clock and we will vote on a draft decision on what's before us which is your roof and windows and we will incorporate any information we get about Certificate of Occupancy that exist and then once we vote I have to sign it, it goes and gets filed at the Town Clerk you'll get a copy and that's what legalizes it. The Building Department also gets a copy, it means then they can issue your building permit. MEMBER DANTES : Building is going to review it for the hurricane code, they're going to review it to meet state code we don't actually review the windows you're ordering so that's not really CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that's fine, they've given us a plan with elevations, there are some specs on it if we're approving this that's what we stamp and it's done. They do more thorough inspection because they're looking at different things than what we're looking at. You required a variance mostly because you're too close to the bluff and that's•a pre-existing condition and your house is legitimately there sitting where it sits and if it was sitting 100 feet back you would have never come before the Zoning Board you would have just gotten a building permit. They said you're too close to the bluff which means you need the variance to do it so that's what you're here for today..Is that clear? Okay so I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of additional information on Certificates.of Occupancy on the subject premises. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7648— PATRICK and DIANE SEVERSON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Patrick and Diane Severson #7648. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-116A and the Building Inspector's January 13, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a new accessory pool house at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet located at 9202 Bridge Lane (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Cutchogue. Hello Ural, so this time we have a pool house not a guest house. URAL TALGAT : At your recommendations the owners took it to heart and they decided to do a pool house and they had needed and so therefore we're here for that reason. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking at an 86 foot 1 inch bluff setback, the code requiring 100 feet and a 15 foot side yard setback from a secondary front yard because of the size of the property here the code requires 50 feet. The secondary front yard is a 25 foot right of way, you are replacing an existing shed at 12 foot 5 inches from the top of the bluff. The pool house side yard is 15 feet is that right? URAL TALGAT : 15 feet 1 inch I believe side yard for the pool house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like half of the pool is already within the 100 foot bluff setback. MEMBER LEHNERT : Most of the house is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The house is protected with a bulkhead and (inaudible) and that secondary front yard is open gravel right? URAL TALGAT : I'm not sure if that right of way is (inaudible) it's overgrown and it's unused. MEMBER DANTES : It goes from a 16 foot right of way to a 25 foot right of way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see if anybody Pat do you have any questions? July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No we've seen this property several times now. MEMBER DANTES : What's the right of way like do for neighbors to walk down to the beach or URAL TALGAT : I'm not quite sure it's definitely access. DIANE SEVERSON : Hi I'm Diane Severson, the right of way is owned by the owners of the vineyard directly in front of our house who is also the owners who sold that other property that just went up but the right of way belongs to the vineyard in front of us so that's attached to that. So it's never been used in the fifteen years we've been there. They recently plowed it down and now it's already you know things grow so quickly it's already overgrown again it's not gravel but in theory it would be access to the beach but there are not currently no beach stairs that they would have access to and it is a you know a steep bluff but a very overgrown hearty bluff all bulkhead protected. MEMBER DANTES : So it's not like a roadway for cars (inaudible) pedestrian path for DIANE SEVERSON : No it's even the right of way down there is a private road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any other questions? MEMBER DANTES : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think as Pat said we've seen this application several times or the applicant not the application so I think this is self-explanatory. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : I agree CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hooray, is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? I'm going to make a motion 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 July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7650SE—KOSTAS KOUKOUDAKIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kostas Koukoudakis #7650SE. The applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is the owner of subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 955 Inlet Drive in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent the application? ROBERT CONNELLY : Good afternoon, Robert Connelly 132 North Main St. East Hampton New York 11937 for Mr. Koukoudakis who is also in attendance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before we get started Liz I think you have some more information, the Building Inspector has confirmed the livable floor area as what I pretty much calculated, 778.50 sq. ft. the size of the "as built" apartment it's not proposed it's in the accessory structure already. The maximum permitted is 750 sq. ft. of livable floor area. We can address that in a variance, we can allow it to be slightly bigger than what the code permits if the Board so chooses and we can do that without additional cost. We have done that before and we it says so in our application packets. ROBERT CONNELLY : Yeah I had a feeling when I asked the architect to calculate the square footage from the discussion you had earlier and I don't think he calculated the bathroom I think he might have left off the bathroom in the calculation but I'm not a hundred percent certain of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whoever calculates it whether it's a surveyor or architect we have to have it confirmed by the Building Department and we have it confirmed as 778.5 which is what I had in my notes. Everything included in the application that's required for verification of principle residence in an affidavit from Mr. Koukoudakis stating the premises is his principle residence, we have a 2022 tax return that was submitted with the Inlet Drive address, a driver's license with that address, PSEG bill, the Certificate of Occupancy Z29965 for a one family dwelling with accessory one car garage that was from the previous owner and we have a CO 41147 dated 2020 for the accessory garage three parking spaces that are shown on the survey in compliance with what's required for an apartment and we have what looks to be a 23.8 foot by 38 foot accessory garage most of it is now the apartment. What we don't have are two things, we don't know whether the person who is living in there now is a relative July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting because that was not supplied nor was there any kind of lease supplied and we don't know whether or not there's a room labeled den or study, it could become a second bedroom it has pull down stair for attic storage in it I guess it must have been included in the calculations the total livable floor area but who exactly is living in that apartment? ROBERT CONNELLY : The applicant is actually occupying the apartment and the principle structure is being utilized by his daughter and two grandchildren that's why there's no lease. I didn't want to submit a lease just to make one up and submit to the Board until you know it would be an illegal lease anyway if the accessory apartment CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh Mr. Koukoudakis is living in the apartment. ROBERT CONNELLY : Correct MEMBER DANTES : You can just draw up a lease like it could be a dollar a year whatever. ROBERT CONNELLY : Sure, I just didn't want to give the Board something you know that might not be legitimate until after the apartment is legitimate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How long has that been the case, when was the garage converted do you know? ROBERT CONNELLY : It was during this is an excuse but hopefully to mitigate the transgression it was during COVID when he made the accessory apartment he wasn't able to get any permits during that time, his daughter came out with the two grandchildren. He needs his own space, he needs the privacy so that's what he converted CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If I had two grandchildren I would want my privacy too. Let me see if anybody has questions, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No you asked my question, who's living there? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My only question is, relative to the den/study space, during my inspection of the premises there was a removed doorway so it was clearly being used as I would think more of a bedroom than a den or a study, what is the proposed opening, what is the plan there and if there's an overage just because there is also the garage bay the apartment itself is all kind of irregularly shaped between the walls perhaps there's a way to better organize it so that it conforms so it's sort of two points that I wanted to bring forward. ROBERT CONNELLY : I mean I guess we have to open that doorway more so that it can be used as July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think Mike finds like what like 6 feet or something so (inaudible) one continuous room and that's why I was thinking that depending on how you look at it the garage door that well I guess it's the design cause they have everything sort of irregularly shaped and it's an odd space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a pull down stair in there now? ROBERT CONNELLY : There is a pull down stair yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that goes up to unfinished attic storage? ROBERT CONNELLY : Storage space, it's not conditioned. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie when you're ready if I can say something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please go ahead Liz. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Mike mentioned are you on Sheet Al? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : He said there's inconsistencies in the numbers in the calculations. He didn't give me specifics he just said there's inconsistencies on Al Sheet 2 of 2. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I added up everything that was on the card you know the name of it (inaudible)that's how I got 778.15. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Okay Mike said he needs to include the light and ventilation calculations that's what he came up with 778.50. The floor plan numbers from the architect he didn't do that. Then he said there's inconsistencies on Sheet Al. He can show me when he comes back I guess. MEMBER LEHNERT : We're legally bound to go with what the Building Department says anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the thing is the code does not allow for two bedrooms only one bedroom and certainly that den is you know it's got a window in it it's a habitable space and it could easily be used as a second bedroom so the way to avoid that is to open up that wall to create one larger room if you want to. MEMBER DANTES : We don't really review light and ventilation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we don't no that's Building Department for habitable you know building code it's nothing for the Zoning Board. Well okay Liz you can follow up with Mike July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting when he gets back maybe but I think the main thing is that we want to make this as conforming to what the code allows as possible so we're just going to need some sort of token least to say maybe an affidavit from the daughter saying I live in ,the principle dwelling my father is living in the accessory apartment. Or from Mr. Koukoudakis it doesn't really matter, somebody needs to give us an affidavit saying this is what you know we are a family, one is living here the other is living there we don't care who lives where it's up to you. Then just make sure that you don't have the appearance of more than one bedroom there's nothing that says how big or how little. I wonder closets are generally not habitable space. You can probably tear down some of that square footage by just making bigger closets you know if you think about it. I'll leave that up to you, we can grant a variance but if there's a way to bring it into more conformity you know with the maximum 750 sq. ft. size. Accessory apartments are not like variances that have a lot more wiggle room you know that you either there's the list, check the boxes you comply we're good to go. So we can have a little bit of variation mostly with just the square footage and we do have precedent for that. What do you want to do Board? MEMBER LEHNERT : I'd like to see the plans change I mean that's still screams second bedroom. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would have the architect redraw the plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep and just get that affidavit or lease of who's living where. I think that would be enough don't you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be fine. So why don't we MEMBER LEHNERT : Close subject to receipt. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't need another hearing on this. I'm just going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of revised plans and an affidavit of residency with a lease. Is there a second on my motion? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. I think we will make a motion to recess for lunch. 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 : Good afternoon welcome to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. HEARING#7651—TIM and NANCY BURKE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Tim and Nancy Burke #7651. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-13C and the Building Inspector's January 4, 2022 'Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" conversion of an existing accessory garage to two (2) recreations rooms at 1) not a permitted accessory use located at 625 Wood Lane (adj. to Richmond Creek) in Peconic. JOAN CHAMBERS : Good afternoon, my name is Joan Chambers I live at 50620 Main Rd. in Southold and I'm here to represent Nancy and Tim Burke on this matter.The first thing I'd like to address is whether this structure is "as built" in the sense of that term. Prior to any construction an application for a building permit was made and a building permit was issued for plans submitted September 12, 2018 for an accessory structure including an area designated recreation space on the site plan and on the application for the building permit. The permit included as clearly noted on the plan that the interior of the accessory structure would be finished with radiant heat under tile floors, board and batten wall finish, a cathedral ceiling finished with painted cedar as well as trim, high quality doors and windows. Because July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting the permit was issued for an application that included recreation space and with plans that have clear notations of degree of finish. The contractor and owners assumed the plans were within the parameters of the issuance of a C.O. but as most projects there were some changes made during construction. When the decision was made to add a toilet and sink an application was made to the Suffolk County Board of Health and a permit for a septic system was issued September 22, 2021. The additional plumbing was added to the plans and was inspected and approved by the Town of Southold's Building,Inspector John Jarski on February 25, 2019. Also the conversion of the smaller parking area to a storage area was not noted as problematic when it was inspected and approved by Southold Town Building Inspector John Jarski on December 6th. All inspections were performed as required and in no time was it mentioned that these revision to the original plans would prevent the issuance of a C.O. and they're copies of those inspection tickets included in the application. Also note that the existing residence is a modest one story 1,324 sq. ft. house on a lot that is 76 feet wide. The need for additional space for storage and family activities is apparent. On my count there are more than a dozen other properties in the neighborhood with large accessory structures that appear to not be used to park vehicles. Several adjacent properties including the property immediately to the east has two residences on a single lot. The relief requested is for duly permitted and expected structure that is not unlike others in the neighborhood and it is the intention of the owners to maintain the high standards they have set including modest structures and privacy screening as well as family oriented enjoyment of the property. When the Building Department declined to issue the C.O. I was informed that in order to receive it we would need to remove all "as built" finished but those finishes were included on the plans that were approved for a building permit. I was also told that in order to receive a C.O. the owner would need to restore it to just an unfinished garage even though the original plans never showed it as an unfinished garage. To ask the owners to remove the finished flooring, wall finish, ceilings, doors and window trims perhaps replace the high quality windows with lesser substitutes would be in my opinion unreasonable as well as a significant financial burden. MEMBER DANTES Do we have the original plans in front of us that were submitted to the Building Department? JOAN CHAMBERS :The plans would be included in with the building permit application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have them? JOAN CHAMBERS : I.believe they're in your packet yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO I didn't get copy. July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.I don't think so. BOARD ASSISTANT : Do you have a date on those plans? MEMBER DANTES : Do we have the ones that are we should have a copy of the ones that are stamped by the Building Department and approved right? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah that would be helpful. MEMBER DANTES : Yeah that's kind of what we need but are they stamped approved by the Building Department? JOAN CHAMBERS : Received September 20th for Disapproval. MEMBER DANTES : No I want the ones that you submitted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no,the ones that they issued the building permit for. MEMBER DANTES : You get a set of plans that says approved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : 2018 the building permit was issued to construct a non-habitable accessory garage. JOAN CHAMBERS : Correct MEMBER ACAMPORA : So we don't have those and we don't have the ones from 2022 to well we do have those for the alterations that they did for that dwelling. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Joan did you say you have the permit or you don't have the building permit? JOAN CHAMBERS : I don't have a copy of the permit on me. I can certainly get it to you tomorrow. Jams DeLuca did the plans I can get one from him. He sent me a lot of digital things I'm sure I printed them out and submitted them. If you don't have them I'm mistaken. MEMBER DANTES : Right we don't need the ones from Mr. DeLuca I need the ones that actually have the Building Department's stamp on them. JOAN CHAMBERS : Right from the contractor. .CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Department will have them. The one that was issued. Alright I mean here's the thing, we have no way of knowing what other accessory structures exists legally on other properties there may be many accessories in this town there likely are July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting that are not you know being used for purposes that are conforming to the code. So I can't accept that as something relevant to this unless you can show C.0's on every single one of them. I doubt that that's the case. The other thing is that when did an inspection we should have required an interior inspection because although all the window blinds were drawn we weren't able to see through two doors that there are two bedrooms. There is not a piece of recreational equipment anywhere to be seen, someone is living in there. Do you know who? JOAN CHAMBERS : 1 was under the impression no one was living in there it was being used for storage when I went down to post the sign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well (inaudible) storing two beds, one in each room and their storing a bureau and they're storing bedspreads and throw pillows and you know so I don't know exactly whait it is that they want there. If the Building Department I mean they can miss things it's happened before but it would be hard to imagine missing a plan that detailed every one of these proposed finishes while at the same time called it an accessory garage. JOAN CHAMBERS : Right I understand that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now the half bath I understand because in a garage you can legally have a half bath. So something is not quite adding up here and we'll try and get to the bottom of it but you know we have to see what you can find for us to verify that the Building Department issued what they are now saying was in error and you know I'm not sure maybe John can help me here but if a Building Department makes a mistake it is not necessary incumbent on the Zoning Board to rectify it. JOAN CHAMBERS : I understand that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We try but this is not necessarily what we're here for. JOAN CHAMBERS : When I was speaking to Amanda about this when she explained (inaudible) C.O. Her suggestion was that we convert this building into an allowed use and turn it into an accessory apartment and make an application for that because then it would be an approved use under the zoning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they qualify. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yeah, the Burkes are not interested in putting a kitchen in or renting this at all but if that's a way that you know we can make a concession we would turn around and put another application in to convert this into an accessory apartment. Unfortunately when to do that application we need a C.O. on this structure so it's kind of a catch twenty two. We can't move forward without a C.O. trying to bring this you know into compliance. July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do the Burkes live in the house full time? JOAN CHAMBERS :The Burkes live in the house they're weekend people, summertime people. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it's not a full time residence. JOAN CHAMBERS : It's not a full time residence that I'm aware of that may change but right now I'm pretty sure it's summer home for them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that in and of itself would be part of the required qualifications that they couldn't meet to convert JOAN CHAMBERS :To convert it to an accessory apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right you have to that has to be either a principle residence and an affidavit of residencies, a Star rebate, tax returns you know redacted with their address on it all kinds of legal documents are required to be submitted to verify that they qualify. It's the same with the B&B accessory use, you have to be living in the it's gotta be your home then you can have some rooms available for guests on-site parking and so on. So. Board where do you want to go with this? Is there anybody in the audience who wants to say anything on this application? ANITA KNOWLTON : I'm Anita Knowlton I live on 505 Wood Lane. I just don't know how hard it is to acquire a variance. I was on the Zoning Board in my town where I lived in Maine for thirty five years serving as Chair and I just want to make sure that they you've made me proud you're going along with it the fact that it is a their bedrooms are there, there a people going out in the morning in you know bathrooms and stuff and going into the main house. They do not reside there year round. They're like I am weekends, a week here and there and it's pretty crowded over there and this is not the only thing that was being non-conforming. They did all sorts of building this was the Katz's not the Burke's the people that owned it before that they didn't get they started to put up a fence on my property without a permit which I was able to stop and have them put it back on their property and they got a permit.. But it's just it's getting very crowded over there on a very small piece of land so I just wanted to make sure that we're upholding the flavor of Wood Lane which is a very small quaint residential and it's been that way. We've owned our house since nineteen thirty one we built it I wasn't around obviously. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience? July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : I just want to make a quick rebuttal, the Katz's built a mud room, an arbor and a shed and many, many things on that property and I have cleaned all of that up by getting permits for them so that they all come into compliance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can talk to each other outside but when you're in here you have to talk to the Board. JOAN CHAMBERS So I just want to make it clear that the Burkes have since they bought the property they are cleaning up all other permit violations that they purchased. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Joan they have a C of 0 on the deer fence? JOAN CHAMBERS : The deer fence? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes JOAN CHAMBERS : I have no idea about the deer fence I'm sorry. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Cause you just said that they JOAN CHAMBERS : No it was a mud room, the arbor and there was a shed that was tripled in size at some point. Those are the only ones the Building Department brought to my attention so I'm assuming that the fence was approved because it was never brought up when I was doing all the other work when you know bringing into compliance. ANITA KNOWLTON : Should I go back there? JOAN CHAMBERS :The deer fence was, when I called the Code Enforcement Officer CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on if you want you have to go back to the mic, this is being recorded and we transcribe this and if you wish to say anything. ANITA KNOWLTON : The fence was taken care of the Code Enforcer cause I had just been to the town office to get.a permit for a fence myself and when I came home there was a fence going up not the one I contracted. The Code Enforcement Officer came down stopped the fence being put up. I'm assuming they got a permit because it then was moved onto their property instead of mine and went up so I'm assuming there was a permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well deer fencing is allowed on residential properties in side yards and rear yards. ANITA KNOWLTON : But this was to the water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know where it was Nick, was it the front yard? July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's on the side but I guess it meets the principle front yard setback but I think you still need a permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You still need to it has to be in the side or a rear yard. ANITA KNOWLTON : I had just gotten a permit for my fence in the same line going to the water or from the water back and I knew they didn't have one. I'm assuming when the Code Enforcement Officer went down that that was taken care of because it was then as I said taken off of my property which they didn't seem to mind taking a couple of feet of my property, it then went on their property. I can't guarantee it but I know the Code Enforcement Officer was there stopped work at that time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. What I think is most important here is going to be obtaining the records from the Building Department of the plans that they used and stamped approved for a building permit. JOAN CHAMBERS : Understood CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are no guarantees here anyway but thank you. Is there anybody on Zoom?Anybody else? MEMBER ACAMPORA I have a question, that building that is across from the structure before you go into the main dwelling, what is that? JOAN CHAMBERS : So you're talking about, you go down the driveway the new accessory structure is on your right and as you continued forward MEMBER ACAMPORA : Right across yeah JOAN CHAMBERS : That's just considered a shed and that's the shed that I referred to the Katz's tripled in size. It's unfinished on the inside, concreter slab there's you know there's no door on it, it's basically just a shelter for lawn equipment. It's not habitable in any way and it has been cleared with the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the one listed as framed building 23 feet by 14 feet? JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes that's the one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's allowed in the front yard because it's on a creek so it's just the size probably. Okay, why don't we make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of the plans from the Building Department file stamped approved for a building permit. Is there a second? 40T July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7643—SAM KARALIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Sam Karalis #7643. This is a request for waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM# 1000-31-6-2 which has merged with SCTM 1000-31-6-1 and/or 1000-31-6- 3 based on the Building Inspector's November 9, 2021 Notice of Disapproval which states a non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall merge until the total size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R-40 Residential Zoning District) located at 75 Gillette Drive in East Marion. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of the Karalis family, Sam Karalis and his family. I handed out a letter from Sam, he couldn't be here, he.and his family planned to be here but unfortunately the schedule didn't work out so he sent a letter I see some of you are reading it already so I won't read it into the record but I'll include it in the record. My client the bottom line is he had no idea that the properties merged, he's a florist by trade not a lawyer not a real estate broker and I'll give you the history of the three parcels. This was quite upsetting to the family because obviously after they had planned on they got plans they got Health Department they were building the house for the granddaughter I think is going to be the middle property they learned that it was merged and here we are. I provided you with an outline and let's think of it as I have tax lot one, tax lot two and tax lot three. One is the corner that is facing the Main Rd. it's the house that Ruth Schneider owned, she bought it in 1932 1 believe it's older than that. That property was ultimately sold to Karalis but Ruth Schneider owned that house and the middle lot which is lot two, lot two is part of Marion Manor July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting Subdivision. So you have lot two is Marion Manor Subdivision, lot fifty eight and lot three which is the Karalis other house is lot fifty nine on the Marion Manor Subdivision a little confusing but easier to explain that way. The Karalis family actually purchased lot three which is lot fifty nine in Marion Manor Subdivision in 1983..It's a small ranch that was built in 1961. The subdivision was approved in 1953 so when Marion Manor Subdivision was approved in '53 it was on the hist of exempt subdivision so when you bought into one of the parcels that in that subdivision it did not the merger did not occur until 1997 when the code eliminated the exempt list and then merger applied. So when my clients well they first purchased the lot three house in 1983 and then bought the corner and the middle lot from Mrs. Schneider the parcels would not have merged at that point because it predated 1997. So there was no expectation that the lots were going to merge, there was no discussion there was no thought they bought the properties. The middle parcel the vacant parcel is still a fully wooded not cleared, the small house they're both small houses to be exact but the Main Rd. house faces the Main Rd. it has a Main Rd. address doesn't have any interaction with the middle lot. The Karalis house on Gillette Drive that is in the subdivision is also a very modest very small one story ranch and the middle lot has been kept intact for the future family use which is at this point they're ready to have the family there. So I've given you all those details but the most important fact is that when they bought it, it had not merged and would not have merged for many years to come because they bought in '91 and the code changed in '97. What you find and you know from your experience on the Board that the merger law affected a lot of people that already owned property, they had no idea the code was changing, the real estate developers out here there were some, the attorneys out here those that were intimately familiar with the local land use were the ones that were protecting their existing subdivisions and checker boarding. The majority of the homeowners that may have owned the lot and the house next door had no idea. So unfortunately the code has changed over the years and created the exception the waiver and this falls right in line with the waiver provisions. The family they're the original owners and they want to keep it that way. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have that list in our packet or do you have a copy of it on you? PAT MOORE : What's that the MEMBER DANTES :The exempt list. PAT MOORE : I don't think I have it with me but let me see let me double check if it's in my research. I know that if you pull up the town's website the exemption list is still there showing but I don't know I know Manor I checked the subdivision and it is on that exempt list but I'm looking very quickly to see if I have it. I can provide it for you if you want after the meeting. It's the 100-12 is the provision of the code. July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any other questions? MEMBER DANTES : No the exemption list comes up every now and then. PAT MOORE I have it next to my desk at all times cause a lot of time it's like you don't remember off the top of your head. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz is there anybody on Zoom? Anyone in the audience who would like to address the application? PAT MOORE : In my written documents I did provide similar variances, Tsasos is one on Gillette Drive so I provided that a previous waiver of merger that's been granted and did an analysis of the lots that I can tell from Google still appear(inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay 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 July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING#7654—THOMAS KENNEDY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas Kennedy #7654. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 18, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory gazebo and to legalize an "as built" accessory shed at 1) gazebo is located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) shed is located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet, 3) both gazebo and shed are located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 200 Castle Hill Rd. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Cutchogue. State your name for the record please. KELLY BENNETT : Good afternoon, my name is Kelly Bennett. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's review what we have here. The accessory gazebo and "as built" shed are before the Board, the gazebo is proposed to replace an existing gazebo that's in a side yard. The shed has a zero setback, zero foot setback I guess that must be the side yard. The gazebo is at 46 feet from the top of bluff and the shed is at 61.4 feet from the top of the bluff. The shed is 18 feet 3 inches by 10 foot 3 inches in size as proposed on the left there and the gazebo is to be replaced in kind in its existing location. KELLY BENNETT : Yes I'm here today on behalf of Mr. Kennedy. So basically it is the setback from the top of the bluff to the proposed gazebo that we're here for. So as you had stated it's 46 feet from the top of the bluff. There is an existing wood trellis that would be rebuilt and we are trying to the wood trellis is coming down and we're just building a new gazebo. We do have some prior approvals as well from when Mr. Kennedy went for his pool and other items so there are quite a few other approvals on this property as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you submit them to us? KELLY BENNETT : Oh sure. BOARD ASSISTANT : Do you also have the green cards? KELLY BENNETT : Oh yes I have all that with me. I'm so sorry about that, I put them somewhere so safe and then I couldn't find them. BOARD ASSISTANT : So you have the receipts and the green cards. KELLY BENNETT : Receipts, white cards and greens are in there and they all came back. We just feel that it is pretty much in character with the way the property is now and they would like a nice new trellis. The trellis is coming down so the gazebo will be a nice addition for them and the shed obviously is an existing shed so we're here to maintain that as well. July 7,2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the wood trellis is coming down we've seen and what's proposed is a pretty much a replacement? KELLY BENNETT : Exactly a replacement of that. MEMBER LEHNERT : An exact replica? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Same footprint? KELLY BENNETT : Well no, the footprint is a bit different than the existing trellis. You can see on the survey where it is to be removed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The survey is so little. KELLY BENNETT : I know, I know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to have to do better than this. KELLY BENNETT : There's so much info on there too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're trying to read it they're so tiny they're just not really useful. ,KELLY BENNETT : It's hard to see cause I think they put (inaudible) lines a little bit different I'm just going to reference the plans just to make sure that it's the same size. MEMBER ACAMPORA : When I spoke to the owner he stated what they were going to do was actually take down the railroad ties that were supporting the wall, remove the bonsai trees and go further like 4 feet further out into that area where they you know excavate it out. KELLY BENNETT : I can submit the plans they might be a little bit easier for you to read. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright,this is not a lot coverage issue. KELLY BENNETT : It's not a lot coverage issue no, it's just a topographical issue that was a little bit easier to read there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It just says see architectural drawing here it is okay very similar. KELLY BENNETT : Very similar yeah. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's almost doubling in size. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Making it deeper into the embankment. KELLY BENNETT : It's encroaching further into that top of bluff line than the existing trellis. July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : So it's not a direct replacement. KELLY BENNETT : It is not a direct replacement. MEMBER DANTES : It says existing trellis (inaudible)? KELLY BENNETT : It's just showing as a very light dotted line to be removed and then the proposed is plotted over that so I do believe that it probably was as you had stated about four or five feet of an additional encroachment. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems as Pat mentioned that the retaining wall is being removed and it will become U-shaped to accommodate like a level sitting area. KELLY BENNETT : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But that bluff setback as proposed is 46 feet. KELLY BENNETT : 46 feet CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is it now? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I got 51 KELLY BENNETT : Yeah MEMBER DANTES : Does this require Trustees review? KELLY BENNETT : Not that I was aware of no one had mentioned it just yet. Oh actually we do have to go yes we do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you will because it's within 100 foot jurisdiction. KELLY BENNETT : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob any other questions from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : Not on the trellis. I do have a question on the shed. Can the shed be moved to a conforming location? KELLY BENNETT : Well the goal is to keep it where it was.They seem to think that it would be a slight challenge to MEMBER LEHNERT : I know 6 July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting KELLY BENNETT : To remove it. You know that's something I would have to ask the owner if that's something that they can accommodate or the contractor to see if that's feasible. It would need to maintain a 3 foot setback I believe? MEMBER LEHNERT : 20 feet side and rear yard lot lines. KELLY BENNETT : Yeah cause I believe they do have a chain link fence there so it probably would entail relocating that fence as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know how old that shed is how long it's been there? KELLY BENNETT : Let me see if I have it in my notes. I want to say it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have a C.O. on it? MEMBER LEHNERT : There's no C.O's on the shed. KELLY BENNETT : There's no C.O. on the shed. I know that it was (inaudible) to the pool so you figure somewhere in between you know'92 and the present it's been there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Also the lot is well vegetated and the shed is extremely camouflaged by mature landscaping. It appears to have been in that location for many years. KELLY BENNETT It has but I know they would absolutely agree if fell into disrepair or damage they would one hundred percent be replaced in a conforming location. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Nick anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : I don't understand taking out the retaining wall and moving it cause then you're digging into the buff aren't you? I'm kind of confused by that. I MEMBER LEHNERT : Well it looks like they're putting a raised patio seaward of the existing. MEMBER DANTES : Does it go on top of the retaining wall? �I MEMBER ACAMPORA : They have to excavate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's a hill it's a hill it's not a flat area so in order to have a flat (inaudible) gazebo they're going to have to dig into part of that berm that's there. MEMBER DANTES : So it's not like a bluff it's like a manmade berm that's sitting there? July 7,2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a natural property the terrain they didn't do anything to that. MEMBER ACAMPORA :The property slopes quite a bit. BOARD ASSISTANT : The LWRP also says inconsistent. MEMBER DANTES : Do I have a copy of that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : LWRP what was it, inconsistent? We have copies. KELLY BENNETT : And did you want the prior zoning approvals? P CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes MEMBER DANTES : The LWRP is inconsistent because it says "as built" structures are inconsistent with this policy building structures without proper review erodes community character and (inaudible) against the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So in other words it's inconsistent cause it's there. MEMBER DANTES : It does ask for a non-turf buffer. In the event the action is approved require a drought-tolerant vegetated non-turf buffer to minimize lawn area and irrigation near the bluff system. Integrate existing vegetation where feasible. I don't know what means. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says existing Rosa Ragusa along the bluff crest MEMBER DANTES : Leave it alone. I guess we need a plan that shows that. It doesn't say how many feet the non-turf buffer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can make a decision. Also they're going to need Trustees. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can I ask one more question? Is there a feasible spot that's more conforming to code to,place the trellis? MEMBER DANTES : This is going to be a lot of excavation. I'm looking at this trellis is not small and that's a big wall. I don't know if Mark was really seeing the whole scope of this project when he did that review. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you look at the photographs you can see that it's there now. MEMBER DANTES : I understand that but he's saying "as built" structure, he's not looking at the I don't think he reviewed what was actually being proposed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can't speculate on that. July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : It says "as built" structures it doesn't say proposed structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's looking at the shed. KELLY BENNETT : In terms of another location I guess what they're trying to do is keep the distance from you know the pool. I don't know if the bluff line gets really any better if we kind of shift that over also. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the other side of the pool. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the other side of the pool because I'm looking at the existing and then what you're proposing and what you're proposing to come closer to the bluff. KELLY BENNETT : Closer yes. MEMBER LEHNERT : Usually we try to mitigate away from the bluff. MEMBER DANTES : I don't have a problem with the existing gazebo and existing location it's just if we're protecting a bluff why are we removing fill MEMBER LEHNERT : Why are we expanding it? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah and that's 46 feet from the bluff so now your digging out what 15 feet or at least from a bluff. KELLY BENNETT : Perhaps they entertain the size of it just kind of cutting that back a bit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It'll probably be a lot more sensible if they just simply replace in kind. KELLY BENNETT : The size of the existing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, take it down build a new one do whatever mediation to the existing bulkhead that's necessary it's a landward bulkhead. MEMBER ACAMPORA : That's a tough piece of property there. When you look at the picture and you see how high up they had to go building that retaining wall and the stairs they have two different sets of stairs (inaudible) so sloped. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a beautiful piece of property. KELLY BENNETT : It really is we've done a lot to it over the years. I 491 I f July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience wanting to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? 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 KELLY BENNETT : (inaudible) to the Board of Trustees with that next application or we have to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you might as well apply now you're going to need it that's for sure. HEARING#7655 FURTHER OUT EAST—C/O TOM DOWLING CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Further Out East c/o Tom Dowling #7655. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 20, 2021 amended January 3, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish and reconstruct an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 860 Rabbit Lane (adj. to Gardners Bay) in East Marion. Bruce before you get started Liz I'm going to just ask you because we do have some people on Zoom to explain if anyone wants to participate and ask a question how they can do that on Zoom. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Good afternoon everyone, for those on Zoom if anyone wishes to comment on this application we ask you that you raise your hand, we will give you further instructions on how you will be able to speak when it's time for that. If you are using a July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting phone, I see we have one with a phone number please press *9 to raise your hand and then we will let you know what to do next.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thanks Liz. So welcome Bruce, a demo and reconstruction it's not a total demo front yard setback at 9 foot 2 inches the code requiring 35 feet, rear yard setback at 17 feet the code requiring 35 foot minimum. Lot coverage 69.7% the code permitting a maximum of 20% and I'll let you take it from there. BRUCE ANDERSON : Before we get started I just want to make sure everyone is looking at the right survey it should say revised 6/23/2022. That was the minute change. MEMBER DANTES : Was this submitted with the file or you emailed it? BRUCE ANDERSON : No it was submitted subsequent to that because there was a discrepancy in the way the Building Inspector counted coverage versus surveyor so it should be dated 6/23/2022. MEMBER DANTES : Did you submit hard copies? BOARD ASSISTANT : I emailed them to you. BRUCE ANDERSON : I have a couple more.The revision is coverage. MEMBER LEHNERT : Lot coverage? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yeah they didn't count the discrepancy was that the exterior entrance to the basement did not count it as lot coverage so the amount of coverage reducing (inaudible) MEMBER LEHNERT : And you're keeping your basement? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) is the same it's just the different calculations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 69.7% BOARD ASSISTANT : The discrepancy between 69 and 72 1 think. BRUCE ANDERSON : Let me just walk you through what's proposed here. The first thing we proposed is remove the existing propane tank on the western side of the existing dwelling, we will remove the existing hot tub, we will remove 132 feet of existing seaward deck and reconstruct a deck with steps minus the balcony for a total of 501 sq. ft. in kind in place. We will reconstruct and expand the existing seaward (inaudible) inclusive of the existing balcony area for 104 and that's over an existing deck. We will remove the existing cellar entrance, we July 7,2022 Regular Meeting will abandon and remove the existing sanitary system in accordance with Health Department standards. We will remove an existing shed which is shown on the survey adjacent to proposed porch lines up with it you'll see a dash line that says shed EVR so we will remove that. We will remove the existing chimney from the eastern side, we will remove 358 sq. ft. of the existing northeasterly deck off the dwelling. We will construct as proposed, 58 sq. ft. addition onto the northeastern house court that's an entry court, 20 sq. ft. pergola with counter under it against the seaward side of the house that basically are architectural features and that's on top of an existing deck. We will construct a 381.25 screened porch on the easterly side of the dwelling. We will install a new propane tank along the westerly portion of the property. We will construct a new 50 sq. ft. basement entry along the westerly side of the dwelling. We will install a new IA septic system landward of the dwelling, construct a 2.5 foot high maximum height wall 97 feet to surround to support the septic system and all this is depicted on the survey that I just handed out. This is a property that contains 10,500 sq. ft. it's a quarter acre lot in an R40 zone. It's also a waterfront property fronting on Gardners Bay and a lot line on Rabbits Lane is the front lot line the shoreline is the rear lot line and the remaining two property lines are side lot lines. It is important to note that the property lays in the eastern terminus Rabbit Lane and that the vacant property directly across the street is also owned by Further Out East. (inaudible) variance request is our intention to apply for a variance to construct a garage thereby extinguishing the building right across the street on a vacant property. No expansion towards the west of the existing proposed building is proposed with the exception of the entry that's in place there, so there's no adjacent parcels that are actually impacted by this project. The property is improved with 1,082 sq. ft. two story dwelling you got over 981 sq. ft. of raised decking another related as residential perk. We've already received and we've been to lots of places but we've received wetland approvals from the Southold Town Trustees, we've received a coastal erosion hazard approval from the an actual appeal from the Town Board which has signed off on this and then of course a Southold Town Trustee Coastal Erosion Hazard permit. Approvals from NYS D.E.C. is expected shortly as we've reached (inaudible) with them and approval from the Health Department is imminent. So this is really for us the last piece of the puzzle. The variance request relates to town code 280-124 and that the coverage would exceed 20% and that the front yard rear yard setbacks would be less than 35 feet. The survey depicts a front yard setback of 9.2 feet and a rear yard setback of 17 feet which is actually the distance from the deck at the bulkhead line and the high water mark. Importantly the coverage is maintained, it's actually slightly decreased from 71.3% to 69.7% and the rear yard setbacks proposed are the same as the existing setbacks that exist today. (inaudible) that are important in your familiar with the most the one is the concept of buildable land which the Board probably knows is the area of the lot on the parcel not included in any square footage of landward or seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line. If you look at your survey and see this coastal erosion hazard line that cuts right through the July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting property now I would say two thirds of the property is seaward of that line. So that's not counted into the buildable area. Also this question of demolition which the Board is well familiar with, there's enough work going on here that would constitute a demolition so those are the two concepts that are important. As you know the demolition would be to remove any part of the structure with a total cost of reconstruction wouldn't exceed 50% of the market value of that structure. MEMBER DANTES : So in other words there's nothing on the other side of that line that's calculated as buildable area but you have a permit from the Town Board to build on the other side of the line. BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct. MEMBER DANTES So you're technically building in an area but still not counted as the buildable lot area? BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct that is exactly that is our essential practical hardship is this coastal erosion hazard line that cuts through the property in such a way that most of the property is seaward of that line there for it doesn't count in buildable area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This the 69% lot coverage. BRUCE ANDERSON : If that definition didn't exist you would be left with 10,500 sq. ft. lot right and the coverage would then be 21.5 feet approximately which is the same coverage that exists today. That's important to know so that the essential hardship here is this line that cuts across this property and that hardship is recognized by the Town Board and that's important to know. So the neighborhood as you know is Rabbit Lane and is entirely of residential character and is dominated by parcels of similar size with similar residential structures they're on. It is also nearly all of the development in the neighborhood are (inaudible) variance on the seaward side of Rabbit Lane. (inaudible) town's variance requirements both in terms of individual setback requirements and coverage requirements because of the buildable area. It is also worthwhile noting when you go to the property directly to the west which is the Stefanides property just take notice that their property is about 24 feet deeper, you'll see the bulkhead line jets out into the bay beyond our bulkhead so please take notice of that. So our essential position is that the proposed (inaudible) is actually consistent with existing development in the neighborhood and frankly along this lot and the parcel is not being overdeveloped as lot coverage has not increased in this application but will be slightly decreased. So we would (inaudible) no impact to the character of the neighborhood, the two story dwelling would be maintained (inaudible) a screened porch would be added, coverage would be maintained technically decreased and there would be no residential expansion to July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting the west and .the lot across the street is owned by the property owner. We submit the benefits cannot be achieved by any other method other than an area variance and this is because the lot in question is bisected by the coastal erosion hazard area line. The effect of depth of the lot even if the line wasn't there would be 61 feet which means we can always run (inaudible) 35 front yard setback and a 35 foot rear yard setback when added together. We submit the grant will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood. We've applied and gained coastal erosion hazard permits the approvals. The variance approvals including (inaudible) we are the approval from D.E.C. is imminent as is the Health Department. (inaudible) benefit the applicant if a variance is granted against the detriment to the public health and safety to the neighborhood. Here the benefit to the applicant should be pretty obvious which is an upgraded redeveloped to the property. We submit that there is no detriment to the public health and safety of the neighborhood resulting from this project as proposed. Now as I said before you're going to see another variance application from me very shortly if this is approved. What we want to do is we want to take the lot across the street which doesn't abut it but it is (inaudible) street we're going to apply for a garage in there thereby extinguishing that building (inaudible) so ultimately in the neighborhood it would be one fewer house is what it amounts to. I can answer any questions that you might have. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question, when you do the work on the house you're going to have to raise the house to meet FEMA compliance right? BRUCE ANDERSON : We are in an X zone. MEMBER DANTES That's an X? BRUCE ANDERSON : Shown on the survey X zone running along the bulkhead line and you'll see X zone and right underneath the line it says flood zone if you look at the right margin of the survey it says flood zone you'll see zone X and below you'll see VE9. MEMBER DANTES : So you don't have to raise the house like the other people on the other side? BRUCE ANDERSON : No MEMBER DANTES :That was my only question. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Bruce can you explain to me more about the rear yard the water setback, from the high water mark it's 17 feet that's what we're looking at for the rear yard setback where 35 is required why isn't it calculated from the bulkhead in other words at zero? July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : Because the rear lot line is the high- water line. The deck is up to the bulkhead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Do we have an LWRP on this? BOARD ASSISTANT : We just go this, it was emailed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can print it but putting the hard copy from now on. MEMBER DANTES : The only comment I would make Bruce is with your propane tank where it is behind the (inaudible) I mean it doesn't (inaudible) part of the review it's just the only comment I can make. You're adding a driveway at some point. BRUCE ANDERSON : Again if we do the garage across the street that will be the driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you proposing to merge those two lots? BRUCE ANDERSON : We will if we get the variance.They don't merge I guess a better way to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would extinguish the right of way. BRUCE ANDERSON : I would say that we would make an application for a garage okay which is something the Board has approved in this neighborhood. They don't merge because they don't abut one another but what we would say is one property can't be sold separate from the other and that a separate house could not be constructed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You put C&R's on it and you extinguish the right of way. TOM DOWLING : I received an email this morning from some neighbors who are concerned about an easement that runs through that and people used to walk to Trumans Path, nothing proposed is going to change that. We love that easement and we want to keep it. So when extinguishing rights etc. nothing to do with the easement whatsoever just to clarify to people. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's just a beach easement. TOM DOWLING : Exactly but we would .take we would be a garage there that would be our garage, we would then whatever the mechanics were there's something put in the deed we would extinguish any right to develop that as a residential lot of any kind. We couldn't sell it separately, we couldn't build a house, couldn't July 7,2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can do it with Covenants and Restrictions that's all. MEMBER DANTES : Do it with a common deed? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes you can do it with a common deed. MEMBER DANTES : One deed with both parcels. TOM DOWLING : As it was explained to me because the road runs between them they didn't automatically merge per the one of the earlier CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You could have just gone to the Assessors and merged them voluntarily had there not been that .road but since the road basically dead ends at your property. TOM DOWLING : Exactly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nobody is losing anything. TOM DOWLING : We'd be happy to do whatever you recommend in that regard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay it sounds like it's all been thought through. Is there anybody in the audience wanting to address the application? BOB O'BRIEN : Hi Bob O'brien I live in the house to the east of this property and I have some questions. I thought it was a total demolition but they say they're staying under fifty percent on reconstruction? MEMBER DANTES : They applied for a demolition. BOB O'BRIEN : It's a total demolition? BRUCE ANDERSON : It's not a total demolition it's a part demolition. BOB O'BRIEN :Just to clarify it's going to be replaced in the same envelope that BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes BOB O'BRIEN : You're going to keep the foundation? TOM DOWLING : Yes BOB O'BRIEN : Same footprint. July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know the demolition code now is really complicated. It used to be you know a percentage of the size of the house, now it's a percentage of the appraised value of the house, only the Building Department and their various formulas can figure out. BOB O'BRIEN : So they're saying the foundation is worth fifty percent of the house? MEMBER DANTES : No they applied for a demolition so this is MEMBER LEHNERT : They're not trying to get around it. MEMBER DANTES : They will have the authority to demolish the house that's what they applied for. BOB O'BRIEN : Was there any needs presented for the need for demolition of the house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They did that to be on the safe side because if you're trying to preserve something it isn't unheard of at all when you tear into an old wall you suddenly find rot you didn't know was there and the next thing you know the builder has done their due diligence and says that's not a good way to build I'm not going to sister up to rotted wood so they replaced all the studs. Then the Building Department comes in and says, oh now you've removed so much of the existing structure it is a demolition by definition okay cause of the value of windows and doors and framing and all of that. So it gets kind of complicated but the point is they're trying to preserve what they can but to be on the safe side they have applied for a demolition which means they go a little bit farther than what the Building Department stamped or we stamped they're still safe if they get the approval. BOB O'BRIEN : I think this sets a very poor precedent though with all these variances (inaudible) tear down the house and keep a foundation but to me that's doing gymnastics. I mean I went to for a client on Skippers Lane out in Orient where you really needed a demolition on the building and that was shot down by all the Boards. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was in a historic district. BOB O'BRIEN : Yeah I know it's a historic district but it's the same thing. The ruling was that if you buy a house you know you buy a house you should really want to live in that house. I mean the second story was put on this house back in 2000 and I had no objections to that but we have no input as to what's going to be built there other than say that's going to be basically within the footprint of the original house and also it's going to have a total screened in porch addition past the coastal erosion toward seaward which how is that allowed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They have a permit from the Town Board to do it. July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting BOB O'BRIEN : How is that allowed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You'd have to ask the Town Board. They are the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board in this town and you cannot build in a CEHA without that approval. So whatever arguments were made before that Board and I think primarily the house much of it already exists within the CEHA and that's because of the strange you know line of what BOB O'BRIEN : I understand I live next door it goes right through my living room also so when I did my renovation everything had to stay within the footprint of the house. MEMBER DANTES : The other thing I'm seeing is, we did know it was going to (inaudible) because he has elevations on here (inaudible) stamped by Joseph Fischetti as to what he's going to build. BOB O'BRIEN : Elevations of the house itself the proposed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes BOB O'BRIEN : I never received any of that and really have no input. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's foil able I mean it's available it's public information. We can give you the Laserfiche link. MEMBER DANTES : It's a full elevation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a full set of plans so we do know what's going to be built and replaced. BOB O'BRIEN : Alright well again I say I mean you have setback variances in every direction, you have a you know non-conforming build out right now I think it sets a very poor precedent for other houses in the Town of Southold in general. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your time. Liz you want to bring in the go ahead on Zoom. PHIL FARRELL : Phil Farrell Trumans Path. So you know everybody that lives on Trumans Path has you know beach access and we come down that trail and we have beach access between that bulkhead and the other bulkhead and to the water. My question is actually just quite simple, I want to call your attention to the survey on the east side there is a little conspicuous blower there and my guess is that's either going to be in taking air into the septic system or expelling sewer gas out and that's pretty much where we like to you know enjoy the beach and I wanted to know about any odors or noise concerns out of that blower. I hope you can see it on the survey. July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : It's right next to the septic tank just to the right. MEMBER DANTES : What is this a FUJI system or something like that? TOM DOWLING : It must be a FUJI system that's the blower. It's a separate height they put in for ejecting nitrate gases. PHIL FARRELL : Okay so sewer gases are going to be expelled right where I set up my beach chair. MEMBER DANTES : I mean this thing is so small. TOM DOWLING : No the blower just PHIL FARRELL : Well then just move it closer to the house then right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on, do me a favor please speak into the mic when you're going to comment because we record this and we won't be getting your comments. TOM DOWLING : It's my assumption it's a FUJI system cause it has a blower motor. That motor can be put basically any place around the house. PHIL FARRELL : Okay so we're going to move it? MEMBER LEHNERT : Hang on, is it your assumption or Bruce can you answer this question? BRUCE ANDERSON : I would have to check with the MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah we don't want to go on assumptions here absolutely not. TOM DOWLING : It does show the blower right next to the bulkhead. BRUCE ANDERSON : If we can accommodate we would be happy to do so. MEMBER LEHNERT : If you can get back to us on that. PHIL FARRELL : That's my immediate concern here so I would like to see that you know relocated. AGNES FARRELL : Can I add to that? My name is Agnes Farrell also from Trumans Path and this is sort of new to us so we really you know don't know about easements and seaward and I'm struggling a little bit with that but on our deed we have the easement to the beach and actually like two (inaudible) over so it's about 20 feet over in front of your property which by the way I have nothing against them making the extension or doing whatever they want but July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting there was no transparency as far as we didn't receive anything that the hearing was today so this MEMBER DANTES : How far do you live from them? AGNES FARRELL : Well that's just it and again this is sort of a new rodeo for all of us but we have this on our deed but the community of Trumans Path uses that beach on a daily basis which they have been very gracious about us being down there but it's our right, we've been down there you know myself I've been down there for over fifty years. So it's not just the easement to the beach, the location of the septic tank what they do to their house is you know obviously their business but it's also that easement"that Mr. Dowling right Mr. Dowling was talking about and there is concern because people use that and have used that and children are riding their bikes and taking their dogs for walks so it's protecting that as well especially when you're talking about setbacks and merging both properties which I understand you're trying to keep it separate CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But that's across from Rabbit Lane. AGNES FARRELL : This is where that is the path the easement where it comes out is right between those two so it's between their house and the other side the lake side is what I would call it. MEMBER LEHNERT : So the easement isn't what we're looking at in this variance application. BRUCE ANDERSON : No there will be no change to any easement condition. MEMBER LEHNERT: What's in front of us right now? BRUCE ANDERSON : What's in front of us on Rabbit Lane adjacent to the property. We are not affecting any easement whatsoever. MEMBER LEHNERT : Great MEMBER DANTES : If the easement affects do the garage application then we'll review that. AGNES FARRELL : And it will be on there,this is the first time we're seeing it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a separate application. All that's before us now is renovations to the house. AGNES FARRELL : I guess the other thing to bring up is that the entire community uses that beach it's over twenty houses and it's you know families, children, grandchildren so it gets pretty tight down at that beach which is wonderful and generational on the block so we all 6,01 July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting sort of know each other but the septic tank location on the lower right, right next to there is literally where on July 41h children were burying each other on the sand. Now I noticed (inaudible) and we met the first time we met you love people using the beach but this is obviously a concern for us. We are there daily throughout the winter you know so it's just an area of concern that we were just love to be addressed maybe further.Thank you. MEMBER DANTES : As far as the notice requirements they are required to send mailings to the adjacent property owners, to post a notice on their property and the public notice in the newspaper. AGNES FARRELL : So I didn't see the public notice in the newspaper the one in front of the house MEMBER LEHNERT : We visited it MEMBER DANTES : We're the ones that put it in the newspaper. AGNES FARRELL : It's not anything like that it wasn't noticed and I am just curious because we are it is on our deeds so in other words if we have easement it's on our deed for the beach we wouldn't have been contacted is what you are saying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No the way in which the public is contacted is as Member Dantes just said, if you live next door you are required to have a mailing the property owner has to mail you personally to let you know this is what we're proposing and this is the date there's a hearing. Otherwise they don't do it to the whole neighborhood or anybody that has beach access it would be crazy what you're going to be mailing to fifty people. So that's why it's in the newspaper two weeks ahead of time, the office does that it says what they're proposing to do and where they're not conforming to the code which is what I read in to the record that was the legal notice. That same notice is posted on their property on a big yellow card that is very visible and is visibly there because we all did site inspections. MEMBER LEHNERT : It was there I saw it. AGNES FARRELL : So for us coming up and down to the beach we don't see it unless we go through that easement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unless you're walking on Rabbit Lane. M AGNES FARRELL : Exactly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you wouldn't have seen it but you know that's all the law requires and it's quite a bit so July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting AGNES FARRELL : So I guess just circling back it's just the concern for the septic. TOM DOWLING : We want to be good neighbors and I understand your concern, I did not even notice it to be honest on the plan so we'll adjust it as we can to make sure that there's not sewer gases we don't want to have .unhappy neighbors believe me. We have a large number that use that beach as you pointed out. The new septic system is something that I think is important environmentally, it's not something that and its location is really the only location that AGNES FARRELL :That's what I was going to ask, is there anywhere else CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There isn't anywhere else it has to the Department of Public Health has to approve these and they have to be a certain number of feet away from water sources and they're quite expensive. This is the state of the art this reduction and nitrogen loading you know protection of ground water so this will be AGNES FARRELL : We did not want to have to change our septic system we really didn't want to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sure it's like thirty thousand dollars to do it. AGNES FARRELL : Is the Health Department where they're seeing the same thing so they know it's a community beach access? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh sure they have these plans. AGNES FARRELL : Okay TOM DOWLING : Any concerns we have or adjustments we have we will certainly do but we can't relocate it because there isn't a place to put it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Especially since it has to be in a front yard on a waterfront property, you are not going to put a septic system between your house and the beach. MEMBER DANTES : Other than that blower everything is buried so you're never going to see it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody, is there anyone else on Zoom? Corinna Durland what would you like to tell us? CORINNA DURLAND : I think that it's probably been covered, I also am a resident of Trumans Path so just to state that the right of way is something that is very important to my family and our kids, we use that so just to confirm that there will be no shift in the right of way and I will I July 7,2022 Regular Meeting hadn't noticed the sewer it sounds like that's being very respectfully handled but I will just raise my hand to we and the kids use that beach and we're very appreciative as well for the use of the beach and but yeah particularly just wanted to raise the right of way which again seems that it's being handled but for the record we love using that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well beach access particularly you know in small communities it's traditionally been that way out here forever and forever and it's something that you know should be preserved and protected and everybody I think feels that way so I don't think that ought to be anybody's concern. There's incredible limitations on this property in fact every property on Rabbit Lane. You know these things were built as little summer cottages years ago way before zoning like a lot of communities out here and understandably property values go up, families get bigger they get handed down to the next generation and people want to improve their property and it happened all up and down Rabbit Lane and a lot of other places that are very difficult to build on a lot in East Marion and Lake Maratooka in Mattituck. So you know as long as we stay on top of it and we develop responsibly so that we protect the rights of property owners but also respect what it does to their neighbors, that's our job that is the balancing test that Bruce was talking about. Does the welfare to the applicant outweigh the potential detriment to the health and well-being of the community and we have to balance those out and that's exactly what the law tells us we're obligated to do. The state statutes that Bruce is referring to you know the character of the neighborhood, can you do it without the variance, what is the substantiality, what environmental impacts those are right in the application cause that's what the law legal state statutes we have to address in our decisions require us to look at. So just a little background because it is true unless you've had any reason to be before the Zoning Board why in the world would you understand what you know it's not like something you go to bed reading at night oh let me read the zoning code before I turn the light out. No it doesn't work that way, when it affects you that's when you start paying attention but that's the way it is. Was there somebody else on Zoom otherwise there's a young man here at the podium let's see state your name. JACK BRENNEN : My name is Jack Brennen I live on Trumans Path at 1050 next to Mrs. (inaudible). My main concern mostly for this as we're going to call a demolition, is that going to be taking place during the summer months of what already looks like a beautifully updated house, is it going to impact the free movement of people from East Marion's Trumans Path over to Rabbit Lane cause I know I'm very good friends with a few residents over there my brother is actually dating a girl over there and I see many people every day jogging and riding bikes through such paths. I just want to make sure it doesn't present a risk to you know children and people going up and down the path every day. I mean it seems like it's going to be a lot of work and again I don't know if they're going to be full time residents but for some July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting of us that are I just want to make sure that it's not going to present a danger risk to people that will be traveling up and down the path. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay perhaps Bruce can answer that. BRUCE ANDERSON : Let me just point out that we are particularly fortunate in that we have a vacant lot across the street to stage equipment, materials etc. that are blocking anyone's access east, west to get to the beach. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So in other words all the large construction equipment and so on materials that will be across Rabbit Lane on the empty lot that they own cause this is a small lot with a big footprint on it and it would be very hard to have construction going on around there. Some of this is going to have to require hand digging. I mean you're not going to be able to use heavy equipment it's too close to the bulkhead and so on. BRUCE ANDERSON : Yeah that's right and the other thing too is as to the timing, it's our intent to make that application for the garage in lieu of the house across the street but that timing really depends like if you were to give us the variances you have uniquely situated to provide some sort of guides as to how you would want that done so obviously if we would build that house before the garage our hope would be to do it to start in the fall so that we have if the two are linked I can't do anything until and unless I get a variance for the garage that's going to step me back six, seven months I would think. MEMBER DANTES : No we have done the garage applications MEMBER LEHNERT :That's not in front of us. BRUCE ANDERSON : It's not in front of you but we've discussed it among ourselves and that's how we'd like to proceed but the actual mechanics in other words whether or not a variance can be granted subject as conditions what I suggest you consider. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can't it's not before us, it hasn't been noticed, it hasn't been proposed it's just a verbal explanation of something that's forthcoming. What we can do is tell you that if we have everything we need by the end of today on this application we are likely to have a decision within two weeks. At that point if we approve this the day after we vote and that'll be two weeks from today in the evening we have a meeting over at the other building and that's when we, we don't take testimony but people are allowed to listen you know it's an open meeting you can Zoom in if you want all we do is discuss the decisions and vote on them and we will have a draft of this application of this decision, we will discuss it before the public and we will vote. The next day I go in and I sign it, then that legalizes it and then you'll get a July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting copy in the mail you can come get it you know but it'll be taken care of, it goes to the Building Department that's when you can apply for a building permit. Now I don't know how long BRUCE ANDERSON : Just so you know we will not complete the Health Department until we produce the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I understand. MEMBER DANTES : He answer to your question is no we don't prevent construction in summer months it's still a public JACK BRENNEN : Right that (inaudible) I'm also just concerned that the sheer size of Rabbit Lane is a very, very small road and I think that with the amount of cars parked on the side of the road now listen what they're going to do with their house is their choice completely and I respect that but I just my concern is that's a very small road about maybe ten foot wide can't even drive two cars down at the same side. My fear would be that if you had a (inaudible) of something going in there would be pretty damaging to some of the trees on the side of the road such as people's driveways, people's cars and also the lot that is across from this house on that road is there's a lake right behind it with a marsh land and I also have a concern with some pollution going into that lake. But then again they're going to do what they're going to do and I'm going to respect that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Well look, when approvals are granted they can be granted with conditions of approval and certainly any good builder is going to know that they're going to need a construction fence up along that right of way to make sure nothing spills over into it, that it remains open and unobstructed.We can certainly say that all construction equipment must always be maintained on this premises not on the road, nothing can be parked on Rabbit Lane so that if construction workers come with their own cars they are lucky because if they've got that empty lot across the street they have the right to have anybody park to put their construction equipment there which is an enormous help. Imagine somebody being stuck in the middle on a Little bitty lot which has happened many times on Rabbit Lane you've been around you've probably seen it and that's really a challenge. They literally have to take this big equipment in and out every day. That can play a lot of havoc with that little road and so you know another thing that is not uncommon is, when it's a generally owned road I think that easement is owned by everybody along Rabbit Lane is it not? So the other thing that can happen, any major damage and we'll have to define what major looks like caused by construction of anything on this property must be maintained by the property owner that's all they'll have to fix the road. It should not be a burden on other property owners if someone wants to undertake construction and accidentally there's damage they should be held accountable to repair it. So things like that are all tools we have in our tool box, they're fair, July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting they're there to you know to make sure everybody feels safe and the property owner understands what its obligations are and the property owner understands what his obligations are you know and the public understands how they will be protected. JACK BRENNEN :The last thing I'll add is just I will be very appalled that if at eighteen years old I can no longer use that beach due to sewer air being on it I would just be very appalled thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think anybody wants to breath sewer air and you know what, honestly the blowers they sound a lot worse than what they are. I mean the thought that sewer air would be blowing at you sounds absolutely appalling. MEMBER DANTES : He's not (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but I'm going to state it anyway because I want it in the record, these IA systems are designed with safety and health in mind. They are not designed to spread noxious fumes into the air. If they did they wouldn't be doing us much good. So just keep in mind when you say sewer gas everybody runs, understandably but that is not really as odious as it sounds. Anything else, is there somebody else on Zoom? WILLIAM BRENNEN : Yes William Brennen on Trumans Path can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Yes we can. WILLIAM BRENNEN : Thank you, so my son Jack was just speaking,Jack I'm proud of you thank you for being there in person as mommy and I could not be. I have a couple of concerns, I appreciate that if there's any damage or problems that it would be the problem of the property owner. My concern is the property owner is not making this petition, the property owner has put this into an LLC basically making the property owner Teflon after the fact. There would be no money left in the LLC to do anything after building costs are done. I also think that it's very foolish to believe that if they're making a petition of a complete demolition but saying today no we're not going to do a complete demolition I think it would be foolish to think that the plan here through an LLC is not to do a complete demolition. Right now any setback further than what that house is will a hundred percent eliminate that access from Trumans Path to Rabbit Lane. Right now when you come out of that easement you are practically on top of the door that leads into the house so any additional setback will absolutely impede upon that easement. So I really hope that the Board takes those things into consideration because that easement there is something that will have a negative impact on everybody that lives on Bay Avenue, everybody that lives on Rabbit Lane and everybody that lives on Trumans Path as that is used for walking dogs, for riding bicycles for running and exercising and it would have a severe and negative impact on the daily lives of many people. July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. BRUCE ANDERSON : I would just simply add you would add perhaps a condition that the road (inaudible) do that. The next thing is that just take notice that there is a shed to the (inaudible) pointed out in my presentation lines up with the proposed porch it's not really encroaching any closer blocking anyone's access.Thank you. TOM DOWLING : Just to emphasize that point that the house is not going to move one inch closer to the easement, to the road etc. so the variance is for setback but it's for what exists already just to be clear so there's absolutely positively going to be nothing that is going to move the house closer to that easement. We know people use that, we like the fact that people use that, we have no intention we use it for walking etc. so that's the first thing. As relates to the LLC just to be clear the LLC structure very common in this case was put in place when we purchased the property so it's not like we put this in an LLC because we wanted to create havoc and avoid being sued and just to further clarify the LLCowns the real estate, the town, the county, the state, the federal government can put a lien on the property and being in an LLC is not protective in any way shape or form from people suing you etc. So when you say that the LLC has not assets, the LLC has a major asset in that it owns two lots on Rabbit Lane. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your explanation. Is there anybody on Zoom who wants to address the Board? Anything from anybody else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Bruce the only thing I sort of want to pick at or maybe just discuss, I get that you're transferring a lot of the lot coverage area around (inaudible) etc. the screened in porch, not that it's huge but it's an addition to the existing house, there is a small wood deck I guess you can say running the width of the house at that spot I guess it's going it's going to be a little bit larger can you talk a little bit more about the screened in porch any future plans relative to enclosing it making it habitable living space? BRUCE ANDERSON : We're not seeking to enclose it and make it habitable living space. .It is a screened porch and it's designed that way because it fits the house that's there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When you say fits I don't understand what that means. BRUCE ANDERSON : In other words we line up to seaward wall and the landward wall the house behind the front entry and this is a space that is 15 feet wide. MEMBER PLANAMENTO: But it is an expansion onto the house. 7 July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : It is an expansion onto the house limited to a screened porch it is not a habitable expansion of the house. MRS. DOWLING : And there's currently a deck there we're just MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A narrow deck. MRS. DOWLING : we're'just (inaudible) deck that's there. BRUCE ANDERSON : And it complies of course with the side yard setbacks when I asked for relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I will say this, the Board is used to seeing lots of variances that's what we're here to look at and the public just isn't so I can understand why people get very nervous thinking oh my God look at what they're doing but what they're doing basically is what's there. MRS. DOWLING :That's the thing, we could have put in plans to build like we it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You could have put anything you wanted but it doesn't mean you would have gotten it. I can't tell you the number of times that people are coming in here they're buying up some prime properties cause most of the prior properties are already developed or they're buying them and tearing down smaller houses and they're starting with a blank slate and they're coming in here with four, five, six variance requests because they want to build what's not allowed to be built on a piece of property. If you're starting with something that's there that's very different than if you're building brand new from scratch okay and then you're looking to avoid the code. You gotta a corner lot. or some places have three front yards, that's understandable you're likely going to need a variance. We have to the Board is being very, very careful in doing its due diligence because there is so much pressure on the development in this town now and we all know it and we all live here and we live it and we want to preserve it but we also have the responsibility to be the relief valve when something isn't conforming to the code that's what the law says. We are an appellate court, you can appeal something that's been denied to you by the Building Department so we listen and we listen to the public cause who knows the neighborhood better than the people who live there. That's what's great about it, really appear review and so far so good you know the challenges just keep getting bigger and bigger for us but you know you just keep working harder that's all. I don't think there's anything else from anybody I see no reason to hold this open, we can go ahead and I think close the hearing and hopefully we'll have a decision in two weeks. So I'm going to make a motion reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second July 7, 2022 Regular Meeting 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 time and your comments. Motion to close the hearing. 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 stop the recording please. July 7, 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 :July 20, 2022