Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/02/2023 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York March 2, 2023 10:11 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (via Zoom) ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page John and Margaret Smyth #7737 3 -8 Pequot Point, LLC#7763 8- 10 Paul Tanck#7741 10- 15 Timothy Quinn/TG# Holdings, LLC#7743 15 - 17 Ruben and Shannon Silverman #7745 17 - 20 Leonard Williams#7746 20- 24 Neena Reddy and Samuel Holt#7747 24-30 Richard Kelly#7748SE 31- 38 Richard Kelly#7749 31- 38 Joseph M. and Joanne Mascia #7750 38 -40 Charles and Kavita Vansant#7751 40-44 Kevin and Anna Kennedy#7752 45 -51 Charles Salice, C/O North Fork Ventures, Ltd.#7733 51 - 55 March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for Thursday, March 2, 2023. Please all rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. A couple of matters before we get to the first application. Are there any items the Board Members would like to put on future agendas at this time for discussion? Okay, I'm going to do the SEAR Resolutions declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 c including the following: John and Margaret Smyth, Pequot Point LLC, Paul Tanck, Timothy Quinn/TG3 Holdings LLC, Ruben and Shannon Silverman, Leonard Williams, Neena Reddy and Samuel Holt, Richard Kelley 7748SE, Richard Kelley 7749, Joseph M. and Joanne Mascia, Charles and Kavita Vansant, Kevin and Anna Kennedy and Charles Salice c/o North Fork Ventures 7738 so moved. 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: Liz would you please review with anyone on Zoom how they can participate if they choose to make a comment. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie, good morning everyone. We have two people on Zoom with us. If you wish to comment on a particular application I ask you that you raise your hand. We'll give you further instructions on how you will be able to speak. If you're using a phone please press *9 to raise your hand and I will give you further instructions on that as well.Thank you. HEARING#7737—JOHN and MARGARET SMYTH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for John and Margaret Smyth #7737. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-13C(1) and the Building Inspector's September 1, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to March 2, 2023'Regular Meeting subdivide a lot into two parcels and maintain an existing barn, carport and "as built" arbor at 1) customarily incidental accessory structures or uses are not permitted on.the lot without a principal use locatedat 29330 NYS Route 25 in Cutchogue. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of the Smyth family. I have Margaret Smyth here with me if there are any specific questions I can't address. I do want to correct, the Notice says two lots it's actually three lots. I provided for the Board the SEAR classification (inaudible) plat approval and the map shows three lots so there was a typo I think on the number of lots. The application is the same as far as the structures that we need variances for. My clients are putting lines on the map that's it, they don't plan to do anything with the property other than as I said lines,on a map. The barns are pre-existing barns from the Fleet origina] Fleet family that from the eighteen hundreds. These barns are beautiful historic structures well at least the big barn is. It was an original horse barn and I gave you the information from the SPLIA write up that the historic that was in the town's records and it appears that the-Fleet family were very successful farmers out here. They owned a ,lot of land the Fleet sons_ or the son came from the Wells family which were the original settlers of the sixteen hundreds here in Southold so it was a very prominent family and he raised and bred horses on this property and the barn is the housing of the horses.,These horses again from the literature apparently for their time would sell for thousands of dollars in the eighteen hundreds so that would be the equivalent of a hundred thousand or more value today. The structures are not changing are not moving but because technically they're accessory structures there's no principal structure on the lot I need these variances in order to keep the structures just where they are. I think some day in the future if anybody put it this way, if I came along and I had unlimited income/money I would take this barn and convert it as you know (inaudible) and make it part of the house or something. There's some really interesting architectural design but who knows down the line. For now it houses my clients stuff, cars personal things it's.machinery. Mr. Smyth collects stuff so and this is but the normal stuff just part ,of his work stuff. So anyway it continues to be a storage building. The, carport again is everything is being used today. You saw from the pictures as well as from you inspections I imagine these are all functional structures and my client again wants to keep everything just as it is. If-you have any questions, this is what I would consider a technical variance because of the fact that they are pre-existing setbacks and pre-existing structures. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've all as you know been out to the site to inspect the property. Typically the Board does not grant variances for accessory structures without principal uses. There is a precedent for a tennis court however that involved a considerable number of C&R's Covenants and Restrictions as to how the site would be used and by whom because it is certainly a large violation of the code to have accessory structures without a principle dwelling there cause they're not accessory to anything. If there's no plans for building a house March 2,2023 Regular Meeting there it's just a matter of you want to maybe do something in the future you want to be able to realize a profit from these other lots. They're conforming lots so that's not an issue and I don't think the setbacks matter particularly because they're pre-existing non-conforming structures. PAT MOORE : They are historic and put it this way, it would one be a shame to remove them because we don't have that many historic structures that are intact and the condition that they are in, arguably if you wanted to demolish them there's SPLIA so we're going against our own interest as far as the town is concerned to require demolition of these kind of structures. We also don't want to force a family to build a house that's an extra environmental just not only an expense but also keep the property undeveloped as long.as possible. Again this is the subdivision is as a matter of right here putting lines on a property but we don't want the alternative here is to build a house and it seems to me kind of a tail wagging the dog. We want to keep these historic structures but we have to build a house in order to make them to allow them to remain. It just seems completely inconsistent with our overall town policies. This is a unique application, I know I've been before the Board other times where you have a client that had a lot on one side and the house on the other and a garage on the a other property because that's the way it got developed many years ago. So I know that I had to come before the Board for variances that you've granted because it was not changing the character of the neighborhood in any way. The structures are remaining and to the world and to the neighbors walking by nothing is changing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think those are you're referring to on Ruch Lane in Southold. PAT MOORE : No actually it was Cutchogue area, White was the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well those are lots that are usually across the street from each other and there wasn't room for a garage on the other side-of the road and they were owned by the same people and they were very small lots. So yes there is that, this is considerably different than that. I don't see why the arbor- and the shed are very movable, they are structures that can easily be lifted and put onto the applicant's property you know where the house is. They're right next to the property line, there's no foundation or anything like that that would be a problem. The barn cannot be moved it is absolutely not a movable structure. PAT MOORE : So when you say arbor I see, the other is a one car garage I don't see the shed. MEMBER DANTES : It's a carport with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a carport it's very easy to move that it's not a difficult thing to move. Let's see what the Board has to say, Eric how about you? March 2,2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I think the reason the Notice of Disapproval doesn't mention three lots is because the lot to the west doesn't need any variances for anything so I think that's the way they did it the way they did it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you're right but we do have to recognize that they're proposing three lots because that's a lot line change. They'll have to go to the Planning Board after this to you know MEMBER DANTES : My other question was it looks like the coop is over the lot line, would they be able to move that just so it's not over the line? PAT MOORE : Yeah that's not a problem. I don't know what condition what it can be moved. MEMBER DANTES : It just kind of cleans it up a little bit. PAT MOORE : That's not a problem. MEMBER DANTES :That was my only question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO Pat, I'm very sensitive to historical properties I appreciate the history of this property I always admired it. PAT MOORE : It is beautiful. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The western lot as Eric you pointed out is out of there's no debate going on there it's a conforming lot there's no issue, unless there's a zone change what would preclude the applicant that at a later date when they're ready to build a house to then do the subdivision to create the third lot? PAT MOORE : Well one, you put in your application when you have the money, the time and so on it takes easily three to four years to get through a subdivision process so this was the appropriate time for them to do it. We have an application pretty much at the point of getting preliminary map approval. In fact I had a meeting we had it on the work session of the Planning Board this past Monday and it's moving ahead and obviously I need this variance to retain the structures. The application is before you, the alternate for us is build a house I mean for demolish structures so I mean we wouldn't put it takes us six or eight months to get before the Board for a variance so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would be a pity to see the barn be taken down. PAT MOORE : Well that's why we're here. March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MARGARET SMYTH : It won't be taken down. Margaret Smyth. The lady who owned the property before us wouldn't sell the property to somebody that wants to take down the barn and we assured her that's not in our thoughts at all. We have no intention in taking down the barn, the lady that had the property before us had an opportunity to sell it to somebody that was going to give her more money but she sold it to us because we are not going to touch the barn. We love the barn, it's part of history, there's writings on the walls from the eighteen hundreds and it's just a root cellar it's just a beautiful piece of history. We will never do anything to it. MEMBER DANTES : Is there a code conforming use that you can give the barn Pat? PAT MOORE : Well right now it's a storage barn and it has a C.O. and it's a conforming use. If it were converted to a residence that's why I asked the Board that don't put a condition that it couldn't be converted the variances depending on how you write them we wouldn't be able to convert a storage building to a dwelling because we're outside our building envelope. So it just depends on what future owners might want to do. No matter what the outside of this building is beautiful and it's just should never be lost. Inside the building right now it's just an old horse farm so it's open rafters storage yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob any questions from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone on Zoom Liz that wants to address the application? No okay. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Okay, I think what the Board has to do is (inaudible) is there any other comments? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7763—PEQUOT POINT, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Pequot Point, LLC #7763. Request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's December 8, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard, 2) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at East End Road/2875 Castle Road (adj.to Block Island Sound) on Fishers Island. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning Martin Finnegan for the applicant Pequot Point, LLC. At the offset I just want to confirm the Board's receipt of we've submitted an updated site plan just to show where the mechanicals are for the pool it had been on the original plan and also there's slight change in the design of the pool to have an infinity (inaudible). This application well the Board will be familiar with this property, it was before you earlier in 2022, variance relief was granted for the side yard and bluff setback for renovations that were completed to the property and also for the construction of an accessory garage. We're here today to ask for additional variance relief to relocate the existing swimming pool on the property which now sits at about 32 feet from the top of the bluff to more than 75 feet from the top of the bluff right behind the recently improved accessory garage. The action as you know is deemed to be consistent by the LWRP Coordinator with all policies in recognition of the fact that the pool is going to be relocated farther away from the,bluff and the recognition of the bluff as being stable and vegetated. Also this request for relief was previously submitted to the Board and actually granted by way of a deminimus change to the earlier variance relief which seemed appropriate to all except (inaudible) the Building Department and so here we are again. This is again a relocation of an existing accessory structure to a more conforming location. It happens because of the configuration of the property partially in the side yard. It is way off the side yard setback of the property line well over 100 feet and again we are moving the pool 40 plus feet more sorry farther away from the top of the bluff. So as far as character of the neighborhood moving the pool to 75.4 feet from the top of the bluff as opposed to 32 feet where it sits now allows the applicant to achieve seventy five compliance with the bluff setback. There is ample existing screening along the side yard of the property and obviously the garage the accessory garage with also provide screening for the relocated pool. The benefits sought is just a safer location, they have young children they'd like to have the pool in an area that is tucked in close to the house away from the top of a steep bluff but March 2,2023 Regular Meeting nevertheless we're still somewhat within the setback so we require variance relief to accomplish this. As to substantiality, you know again we're moving nearly 43 feet farther from the top of bluff well within the side yard setback and that (inaudible) by the Board in your November 2"d letter. The proposed relocation of the pool to the side yard is deminimus in nature as well as less non-conforming to allow the setbacks. So we ask you to adhere to that earlier interpretation. As far as adverse impacts this is a net positive impact, we are going to be relocating a structure farther away from the bluff. The design of the pool is intended to actually with the infinity it would be above ground the seaward side of the pool will actually act as the pool fence it's four foot'above grade which obviously means less excavation within the setback area for the construction of the pool. All those factors considered there wouldn't be any adverse impact on the we have a pool (inaudible) and we're still,going to have a pool. As to self-created, again moving the pool farther away from the top of bluff.is a net positive and self-creation should have no bearing we would see on the relief requested. So with that I'd be happy to address any questions that the Board may have on the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're familiar with this one,-I think all the questions have been answered at least three times.Anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nope right there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, I'm sorry Martin, this is more administratively don't worry, I was taken back when I read the deminimus letter so I was like why are we here but MARTIN FINNEGAN : Thank you we had the same (inaudible) unfortunately my client had to go to the expense and wasting your time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm truly sorry but two administrative questions, one there was no survey included in the application there was a site plan but administratively do we need a copy of the survey? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as it's.a site plan that's stamped by a licensed professional (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Your happy with that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Absolutely. March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then the dry well is not included. So I'm hoping that there will be a dry well for the pool. MARTIN FINNEGAN :There will be, we can:absolutely add that and submit a revised plan. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Revised site plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience, anyone on Zoom? Motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an updated site plan indicating the location of the drywell for pool de-watering. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7741—PAUL TANCK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application. before the Board is for Paul Tanck #7741. Request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 10, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to demolish an existing in-ground swimming pool and to construct a new in-ground gunite swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code required'rear yard, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 205 at 16705 Main Rd. in East Marion. So this is a front yard setback no its located in the front yard the code requires a rear yard. JOAN CHAMBERS : Right you just confused me terribly for a minute there. o March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have my cryptic notes here and I got my alphabet mixed up.for a bit. A lot coverage of 21.64%the code allowing a maximum of 20%. JOAN CHAMBERS : My name is Joan Chambers, I live at 50620 Main Rd. here in Southold and I'm representing Mr. Tanck today. There is a prior Zoning Board variance to place the swimming pool in this location that was issued in 1989 1 believe you got copies of that decision and the swimming pool obviously is more than thirty years old and it needs to be replaced. An attempt was made to replace it in the same location as the existing pool leaving the same landscaping the same fencing also replacing the paver deck around it. As for the lot coverage it's really not very much, I mean referring to the survey by Mr.Ahlers the existing lot coverage is 21.29% and the proposed is 21.64% so we're talking about maybe you know a couple of hundred square feet more coverage than is existing. The Trustees have asked for a permit for this because none was ever issued so I'm going to deal with the,dry well in that application. We don't have the dry well located on here I assumed it would be covered by the Trustees but we can put it on the survey if you'd like. That's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It appears as though you're also proposing to expand the size of the pool. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was 16 X 34 and it's now 18 X 47. JOAN CHAMBERS : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, and is that why the lot coverage is increasing? JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes that's the difference in the lot coverage. There's an existing tennis court there that's not being touched, there's also a gazebo I'm sure you saw that, that's going to be torn down. So somethings have just been removed but the pool is being made larger. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually a point of clarification if you can, within the application it shows that the existing pool is 16 X 34 the survey shows 16 X 32 and then in the application it shows that the pool is 18 X 46 but the survey shows 18 X 47. JOAN CHAMBERS : I have to get the surveyor to correct things. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it is the application that is correct or the survey? JOAN CHAMBERS : I believe the pool company (inaudible) were correct but you know what I'll check on that. 16.X 34 is existing pool March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's coming out so I don't know if that's even really important other than the fact that it established the lot coverage. JOAN CHAMBERS : That's correct. As I said I can only assume that the pool company's dimensions were more correct than the surveyors and the surveyor made a mistake when he transferred the pool company's dimensions because Mr. Ahlers was given the plans and he put them on the survey incorrectly. I don't believe he went back out to the property and remeasured anything. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But the proposed pool is 18 X 47 then? JOAN CHAMBERS : So the proposed pool will be 18 X 47 and the existing is 16 X 34. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's a difference between 510 sq. ft. and 846 sq. ft. proposed. JOAN CHAMBERS : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's pretty much a deminimus increase I'm surprised I guess cause you're removing the gazebo. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The gazebo I think was 210 JOAN CHAMBERS : The gazebo was 121 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 121, so my only other question and I'm sorry I know the Chairperson was speaking but on the lot coverage the existing lot coverage it says house and decks so I'm just curious when I was doing the site inspection there's a framed deck up at the very far north of the property was that included in that lot coverage? JOAN CHAMBERS : I believe that the decks are surrounding the house and north of the house were included in the lot coverage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Okay it wasn't cause I was just wondering maybe that deck doesn't seem to serve any purpose, there is a little bit of like a retaining wall like fourteen inch off the grade because of the slope going up and I was just wondering if perhaps the deck was going to be demolished or removed which would also reduce the lot coverage to potentially to make it conform. JOAN CHAMBERS : I can certainly suggest that to the owner. I honestly don't know if they use it or what they use it for. It just wasn't part of the pool plan to do anything up by the house (inaudible) decks. March 2,2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But you do think that the deck is included in the house and deck lot coverage. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes I did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah, going through the variances here it looks like there is a variance for the lot coverage to go over 20% in 1989, what I'm looking for is, is there a C.O. for the tennis court in here somewhere? JOAN CHAMBERS : I don't know I have to get my file and see. I assume that I gave that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : By memory there was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think so. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That variance was also tied to the tennis court. JOAN CHAMBERS : Would you like to find another copy and drop it off for you rather than CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we have it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Here it is, Eric it's C 0 Z-18620 dated December 1, 1989, tennis court with fence per ZBA Decision 3810 and Trustees decision #3-1-89 23-1-14.6 so it's all there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're going to need to,get Trustees permit for this? JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes I did. The Trustees reviewed it and they said you know even though CR25 separates the swimming pool from the wetlands they would still prefer that we got a Trustees permit so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might be just an administrative permit that you won't require a permit for? JOAN CHAMBERS : I'm hoping that it would be an administrative permit but what when I approached the Trustees they said that they would not accept any application from me until it had been reviewed by Zoning so I haven't had a lot of feedback from them about it yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? March 2,2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I actually was wondering the same thing Nick was about that deck if they could remove that. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Joan what do you want to do, do you want to see if you can get surveyors take so long what are the changes? You're proposing 18 X 47 and what does the survey say 18 X 46? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No the survey had the 18 X 47 MEMBER LEHNERT :The survey was correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so then MEMBER DANTES :That's the stamped one,the pool has just a hand drawn sketch. JOAN CHAMBERS : Except John Ahlers survey has the dimensions of the pool. (inaudible) to the pool company so they don't build the wrong sized swimming pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so we don't really need to do anything. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing Leslie going back to that crescent shaped deck all the way to the north, if in fact it's included and there's no detailed list of the actual square footage for various improvements I think even if they remove it they still need a variance it's still going to be over 20% and in light of the original variance relief I think we're splitting hairs here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do too. We can just go ahead and leave it and apply you know just make a determination based upon the application before us. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the only thing I did want to mention (inaudible) from what you were saying,the applicant will provide an updated survey with the dry wells? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or we can just condition it based upon the dry well. MEMBER LEHNERT : They're going to need that for the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's going to hold them up for a long time unnecessarily. So it's a standard condition of approval anyway. Alright motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? March 2,2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7743—TIMOTHY QUINN/TG3 HOLDINGS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Timothy Quinn/TG3 Holdings, LLC #7743. This is a request for variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's September 12, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to demolish and reconstruct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 1 Mulford Court in Orient. Is there someone to represent the application? Please come to the mic and state your name. JEN DELVAGLIO : Good morning I'm Jennifer DelVaglio from East End Pool King acting as the agent on behalf of the Quinns. I'm just here to answer any questions that the Board might have. (inaudible) to demolish an existing pool and use the same footprint and put in a gunite pool. We'd like to remove the deck and put in (inaudible). I'm trying to minimize any more disturbance of the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Same size and everything else? JEN DELVAGLIO : Exactly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The biggest challenge is finding the property. I'm glad I was in a Jeep that's all I can tell you. JEN DELVAGLIO : It's a long driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It sure is. So the LWRP says it's inconsistent and recommends rotating it but frankly that would create more land disturbance. Do you need Trustees approval for this? JEN DELVAGLIO : I do. March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN That's what I thought. So you're talking about 60.5 feet bluff setback? JEN DELVAGLIO : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Same size, you got a 1991 C.O., you got a January 25, 2020 Trustees permit to rebuild the bluff staircase and revegetate and ZBA 3997 March 8, 1991 for the existing pool location. This is really a maintenance situation. Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes sorry to be the one that's always checking the details. I'm just now trying to pull up that ZBA decision because I believe the decision said that the pool is supposed to be located 76 feet from the top of the bluff. MEMBER DANTES : It might have been 76 back then. MEMBER LEHNERT : Different bluff. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh that's true the bluff eroded and (inaudible) that's a good point. MEMBER DANTES : That was forty years ago. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah, yeah, yeah I wasn't thinking about erosion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the problem you don't think about erosion. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's not going to grow bigger. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I don't know if there's any discussion to that point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, not really. Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. MEMBER DANTES : Is there any non-turf or non-disturbance buffer at the top of the bluff or is that we'll just leave that for the Trustees. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'd leave that for the Trustees, they're going to make them do that anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I had a big question mark too should we require a non-turf buffer but I think since you have to go before the Trustees you might as well let them handle that. March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would just point out then to that point, there was irrigation in the bluff visible irrigation pipes sticking out. JEN DELVAGLIO : Was there? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah so that's something the Trustees I expect will probably catch but normally we get Soil and Water reports also would you know require mitigation. JEN DELVAGLIO : You got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in' the audience wanting to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? 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 HEARING#7745—RUBEN and SHANNON SILVERMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN The next application before the Board is for Ruben and Shannon Silverman #7745. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's November 28, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct an accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 2500 Paradise Point Rd. in Southold. Hi would you please state your name. BILL KELLY : Hi I'm Bill Kelly with Morton Buildings authorized for the owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we've all been out to inspect the property, we've seen what you're proposing. Let's see if the Board has any questions. Nick we might as well start with you. March'2,2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO ': I get the terrain it's without a doubt an unusual terrain here but that is part of the issue. It's part of the character of Paradise Point, the entire neighborhood and region is heavily wooded, small scale older homes that may have been updated or renovated etc. This is just one of those 1930's bungalows it's a (inaudible). My question is, why such a large garage building? It's modestly smaller you know within tens of square feet than the existing residence, tell us about the use and any utilities. BILL KELLY : You can tell that the house is a small house so storage is limited within the house so by we'll call a garage because its 24 feet wide which is typical of a two car garage. The additional depth is simply for storage of owners stuff. Of course the location that they picked was because of the contour of the property and (inaudible). As far as the building of it, it meets the requirements of the town for an accessory structure it doesn't exceed the requirements of the town for an accessory structure on that size property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's just the placement of course is the issue. BILL KELLY : The placement is the issue and if you went out to the property which I'm sure you did you can see that there's a large kettle hole that you know it's just really you know to address it any other way than the way we're addressing it we're just trying to find a flat leveled place to put the garage so that there's easy access with vehicles in and out of the garage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You mentioned that it's a two car garage with storage, the elevation showed a third bay,the elevations I'm trying to understand they sort of don't fit I think the BILL KELLY : I think there's a door on the one end or side just for accessibility just from that side so that if you want to get in and out let's say like for a lawn mower tractor or anything like that you don't have to move the cars to get it in and out of the building. So it's an access without having to move the cars to get the materials in and out of the building. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I just want to point out that the elevations sort of don't match the plan but I guess that's (inaudible). What is the height of the building? BILL KELLY : The peak height is 17.5 feet oh I'm sorry wrong one I got two of them here. You're asking for peak height. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I didn't see anything within the application or on the elevations. BILL KELLY : The actual peak height is 17.5 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's conforming. March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting BILL KELLY : It's conforming. MEMBER DANTES : What's the required front yard setback for a house in that BILL KELLY : 60 feet I think. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the only place you can put anything without enormous land disturbance. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Do you have any knowledge of other property owners in the general Paradise Point neighborhood that have received variances for a garage in a front yard? BILL KELLY : That I don't however if you continue down the road it's all waterfront properties so everything is in the front yard everything well the rear yard becomes the front yard then so as far as to answer your questions is I didn't go down Paradise Point but (inaudible) if that was the case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did and there are lots of accessory structures in front yards all throughout that whole area. BILL KELLY : You have a lot of waterfront properties as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fundamentally why because they're allowed in the front yard. BILL KELLY : (inaudible) front yard, the rear yard and so from the standpoint of having a building of where it's at it's not out of character for that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Frankly you won't see it at all from Paradise Point Rd. with the existing vegetation, you'll only see it for those few houses that use the right of way and just go past it. Pat any questions from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. 191 March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants 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 DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7746—LEONARD WILLIAMS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Leonard Williams #7746. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's November 28, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct an accessory garage 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 6925 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. in Laurel. This is a side yard setback rear yard setback of 5 feet and a side yard setback of 5 feet where the code requires 15 feet. BILL KELLY : Correct MEMBER DANTES : Why not just conform? BILL KELLY : Part of the problem well the property is trapezoidal in shape so by conforming it pushes the building farther into the property closer to the house so that was the reason for requesting the variance. The location it's at now we measured from the corner of the property because of the trapezoidal shape, the building closest part to the northeast corner of that building is 30 feet away from that corner. Then if you start to move your lines for the 15 foot setback it pushes it closer to the house and that's the reason for the request. The other part of that is the driveway that comes into the garage the existing garage (inaudible) wants March 2,2.023 Regular Meeting to bring the garage in the driveway of the east side of that garage and extend it down to the building so if we can push it closer to that trapezoidal corner then it'll allow the area of the driveway and access to the garage for pulling in and out of pushes that farther away from the house as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're proposing cause there was a truck actually parked along the side of the existing framed garage so you're proposing to put in a driveway access along the property line to the back. BILL KELLY : Access to yes along the property line to the back. The location of where it's going is MEMBER DANTES : But it's a big piece of property and you're only talking about 10 additional feet. MEMBER LEHNERT : And you know unlike the last one this is a flat piece of land. MEMBER DANTES : To me it seems easy enough to conform. I mean what's the hardship to trigger a variance request? BILL KELLY : I almost have to have the owner address those questions rather than myself. The owner is here Len Williams is here and you know let him give his reason. LEONARD WILLIAMS : Good morning, Leonard Williams. Our desire for keeping the garage closer to the property lines is as Bill had mentioned, to keep it further away from the house and that large piece of unused land and the point of the trapezoid becomes larger considerably larger when you have to maintain 15 foot from both the rear and the side property lines. I'm sure you saw the location it's very wooded back there. Our whole purpose in putting the garage back in that corner is to keep it further from the house so it's less seen, it's not seen by us it's not seen by the neighbors as much. So the more we have to maintain the setbacks of 15 feet the further that garage comes out of the woods and there's more visible from the house, from neighbor's properties. We just wanted it more secluded that was the reason and less wasteful of the land that's locked in behind it in that triangle back behind it. The adjoining house is as I'm sure you,saw some of them are built on the property line or a couple of inches off the property line even though they're smaller lots there's almost"no setbacks on some of them. It's not outside of the character of the area to give it a little closer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see what question the Board has, Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think I don't want to make a comment I don't understand why you couldn't conform, the existing garage conforms. I think it's awfully tight it becomes a bit of a March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting burden to have 5 feet between a property line if there's a fence to actually go back and maintain that little remainder of land. It's a large parcel and it is in fact wooded as you've stated. LEONARD WILLIAMS : We just wanted to maintain more as far away from the house as possible to make it less noticeable from the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a large garage, are you proposing to use it as a garage for cars? LEONARD WILLIAMS : Yeah I'm a car collector I have a couple of antique cars. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you planning to do any kind of other than electricity for light bulbs, unheated. LEONARD WILLIAMS : Unheated it's just for storage of the cars and lights inside. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you propose water? LEONARD WILLIAMS : No water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're not working on these cars in the back, you're just storing them. LEONARD WILLIAMS : They're already restored cars. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I understand some of the logic here you know suppose you push this to the 10 foot setbacks rather than 15. LEONARD WILLIAMS : Anything less than 15 would be greatly appreciated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do have a question actually, you know when we go out to the property we look at all the property the whole property for everybody's application and I did notice that the framed garage what's listed there where the truck was parked next to it has a chimney. It looked as though it was potentially habitable space, it looks like it's heated with you know LEONARD WILLIAMS : It's a wood stove in the garage it's like a wood shop a woodworking shop. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's used as a wood working shop you're saying. Do you use it forthat? LEONARD WILLIAMS : We're refinishing furniture, painting things or cutting moldings for inside the house. z March 2,2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just used by you? LEONARD WILLIAMS : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's not a guest cottage or anything like that? LEONARD WILLIAMS : No, no there's no plumbing in it there's no heating CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No plumbing? LEONARD WILLIAMS : No plumbing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just a wood burning stove. LEONARD WILLIAMS : Just a wood burning stove and electric too for lights. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let's see if there's any other questions. Eric anything? MEMBER DANTES : Nothing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob or Nick? MEMBER LEHNERT : No I'm just going to agree with Eric, I don't see why it can't conform. BILL KELLY : Can I make one other comment for the record? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure BILL KELLY : The building was sized so that if you were to look at the code on a smaller sized lot where it would be 5 feet off the property line it's sized where it meets the requirements of that situation so if it was a lot say less than, ten thousand square feet you know where you would be allowed to have 5 feet off the property line the building is sized under a thousand square feet and the peak at 17.5 feet which is all.compliant with the code as far as MEMBER LEHNERT : You're compliant with the code that doesn't match this property.. BILL KELLY : Understood I'm just saying that it was reduced so that you know just for the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience want to address the application? Anybody on Zoom? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7747—NEENA REDDY and SAMUEL HOLT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Neena Reddy and Samuel Holt #7747. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's December 1, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct an in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 500 Sound Drive in Greenport. Is someone here to represent the application? Surprise, surprise I thought it would be you. So this is a pool in a side yard? JEN DELVAGLIO : Yes, Jennifer DelVaglio from East End Pool King representing Neena Reddy and Sam Holt for the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The side yard is the only flat area on that property it really is sloping. JEN DELVAGLIO : It's going to be a tricky build that's for sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no usable rear yard on this at all based on the way the house is cited on the triangular shape of this lot. JEN DELVAGLIO : Yeah it's actually very misleading how small the lot is because it's right up against all those woods. So the important part of the puzzle is (inaudible) the pool for them. They really want to have a large pool, Sam is very tall over six feet so for him the length and being able to do laps and fitness is very important to him. I just wanted to get that out in the open first. 241 March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it isn't the lot coverage that's the issue and there's no setback issues so it's really just a matter of a side yard. I mean I looked at the front yards and it's clearly not an appropriate location for a pool not for the applicant and not for the neighbors. The only thing that I have down here was that it's certainly possible from that side yard that it will be visible to the street. JEN DELVAGLIO : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is an opportunity I think where maybe some landscape screening might be an appropriate thing for the privacy of the owners as well as the rest of the neighbors. JEN DELVAGLIO : Oh for sure. Did you get the conceptual design? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah well there's this it shows a lot of trees around it. JEN DELVAGLIO : Yeah they definitely want to have it completely screened. Because of grade and elevation changes they're probably going to do some sort of small retaining wall that'll go from the corner of the front of the house around to the end of the side yard and then they'll do shrubs there and then they'll do fence behind the shrubs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We would just condition approval based upon some evergreen screening. MEMBER DANTES : This is all you have in your packet too right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's all I've got. What do you mean, do I have another document? MEMBER DANTES : No I mean cause they definitely have the space to put the pool just on the landscape drawing it looks like it's very close to the side MEBMER LEHNERT :There's nothing showing a setback from that corner. MEMBER DANTES : I mean I don't have a problem with the variance the space is there do we just need a drawing showing a side yard setback? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's going to be (inaudible) corner. MEMBER DANTES : No I know but I don't want to go to the Building Department later on and have MEMBER LEHNERT : Be bounced for a variance. March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Yeah and the same thing with the lot coverage cause it doesn't the conceptual drawing I don't think it's to scale I think might confuse. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we have that. JEN DELVAGLIO : Oh you don't? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute but we can't see anything. Is there dimensions on that? JEN DELVAGLIO : Yeah. If you're asking at the bottom where the pool okay can I approach'for just a second? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure, no this is the same. It's just bigger but it doesn't have the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If we condition it, it should be a minimum of 10 feet from the lot line. JEN DELVAGLIO : (inaudible) from the edge of the property line to the pool is 4 however I would like to ask if we can actually MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we just have a sealed plan showing a setback number? JEN DELVAGLIO : Sure. So what I was going to ask was, what we want to do is I don't like it being that close to the side yard CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're going to have trouble fencing and they're going to have trouble with you know adjacent property. Evert though it's just one corner but there's a lot of noise generated by pools. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But Leslie that's a closed road at the corner so if someone is trying to open the road up that puts the pool in the front yard but I think it's closed I don't think anyone will be doing that but I think that it might be,-easier just to say that we're granting alternative relief(inaudible) option for a pool other than that spot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait let's see what they want to do, you're saying you want to move it? JEN DELVAGLIO : I do. So what I was proposing was if I take out these stairs I can gain 5 feet. So I thought it would be better for everybody if we pushed the pool 5 feet closer to the house. It'll still give them plenty of room to have patio space. So I can technically get 9 full feet there. So if you wanted to do 10 fine. March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : That's fine, I mean even the 5 you're within what you can do, we just need someone to put that dimension on. JEN DELVAGLIO : Sure I can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we do this then, this isn't going to take that long cause this is a you know this is not a surveyor so you can get someone to why don't you submit an amended site plan. JEN DELVAGLIO : At the 9 feet or 10 feet? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'd like the 10 feet. JEN DELVAGLIO : I'll do the 10 feet for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then it's conforming for sure. I don't want to be looking at a deminimus from the Building Department. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing then you still have to maybe take into consideration there's in fact while unopened it's a road so you know if it should really technically meet the front yard setback but that's never going to happen. MEMBER LEHNERT : Well I'm just trying to avoid you guys coming back here cause you're going to have to file a survey once you dig the hole and if they find out it's like 4 feet or something then you're going to be back to this again. Let's do this now. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I think the 10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ten is great then we know it's conforming. I'll tell you what is there anyone on Zoom? MEMBER DANTES : Do we know there isn't a lot coverage cause I don't see a calculation anywhere? JEN DELVAGLIO : For lot coverage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They didn't quote it from the Building Department. MEMBER DANTES : I know that but it doesn't say what the lot coverage is. JEN DELVAGLIO : You want me to add that? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah put that on there cause they'll come back and say oh we missed it. JEN DELVAGLIO : Okay so I'll get the lot coverage and we'll move the pool to 10 foot March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Side yard setback right. Is the location of the pool equipment here? JEN DELVAGLIO : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right there in the corner. JEN DELVAGLIO : Can you see it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I see it and we're going to need a dry well for pool de- watering. JEN DELVAGLIO : Okay the drywell will be in the same location but would it be a problem we're considering moving it behind the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What the pump equipment? JEN DELVAGLIO : The pump equipment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's actually a better location because it doesn't have any impact on adjacent properties. JEN DELVAGLIO : I'm trying to get them to do that but it's not a hundred percent confirmed so if I can keep it here I'd like to but if they want to move I didn't want it to be a problem later on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No what I think you should do is make it talk to them, tell them what you're planning to do, resubmit amended site plan show where you want the pump equipment and get it resolved now because if you move it I'm telling you John Jarski is going to have you coming back to us and you know we don't want to have property owners have to do that. So make a decision and we will close the hearing subject to receipt so take whatever time you need but the sooner we get it the sooner we'll have a decision. JEN DELVAGLIO : Right, perfect. BOARD ASSISTANT :Jen can you also ask Nick Mazzaferro is the one that stamped it? JEN DELVAGLIO : No,Joe Fischetti. BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes Joe Fischetti I'm sorry, ask him to stamp it. JEN DELVAGLIO : Okay MEMBER ACAMPORA : We lost you. z-,8 March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what we're doing is I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended site plan showing a 10 foot conforming side yard setback and the location of pool equipment and dry well and the lot coverage. Anything else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah just a question for the Board, I don't remember the answer this myself from the site inspection but I'm noticing on the survey there's a shed that straddles the property line so that would have to JEN DELVAGLIO : I noticed that too but did you see it there? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn't see it. MEMBER LEHNERT : I didn't see anything there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I remember walking up the driveway on that side but I just don't remember the shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't remember the shed either. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We should condition it if the shed is there maybe to verify it or relocate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or remove it from the you know JEN DELVAGLIO : I don't remember it there. I'll go and take pictures and submit them with the site plan so that you know whether or not it's there but it don't think it is, I was there on Thursday. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie just a clarification, we have a landscape design plan are you asking for a site plan or a landscape design because the office gets confused. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright as long as it's stamped by a licensed professional it's called a site plan. Whether a landscape architect did it or an architect did it or an engineer did it it's still basically a site plan they just use slightly different terms but it means the same thing. The landscape plan is a site plan. As you can see cause the metes and bounds are in there you know everything that a site plan would have is in it that landscape architect is just going to show you where the (inaudible) are going basically. Anything else? MEMBER LEHNERT :The shed the survey was done in 2018. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's gone, I wouldn't worry about the shed. MEMBER LEHNERT : It wasn't there. March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting JEN DELVAGLIO : I don't think so either. Okay thank you so much, I'll get those changes in to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there's a motion to close subject to receipt of an amended site plan or landscape plan showing pool equipment, dry well and a 10 foot conforming side yard setback and lot coverage. 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. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to recess for lunch. 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye 30 1 March 2,2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7748SE &#7749-RICHARD KELLY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good afternoon everybody. The next application before the Board Js for Richard Kelly #7748SE and I'm going to-open up both of these applications at the same time also Richard Kelley#7749. The first one is a request for a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-1313(13). The applicant is owner of subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure located at 1265 Bay Ave in Mattituck. The second application is for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's December 6, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct an accessory building containing an accessory apartment at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 5 feet located at 1265 Bay Ave. in Mattituck. So'we have a Special Exception Permit and a variance before the Board. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :.Leslie if I may I'm going to be recusing myself so I'm going to leave. If somebody would call me when you're done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Planamento is recused for these two applications and we'll come and get you when we're done with this hearing. I guess we have the screen sharing up there thank you Donna so we can see what we're looking at. Alright so this is an existing accessory building that previously had an accessory apartment .in it and this, is to reconstruct they're calling it an accessory garage because there's no C.O. for the actual use as an apartment and it's a 412 sq. ft. addition and a screened porch which is not considered livable floor area.,It's a side yard setback at 3 feet where the code requires 5 feet. There's a C.O. on it for the dwelling and accessory one car garage on a corner lot. So do you have a copy Anthony of the Building Department's calculations of the livable floor area? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually it's 676 sq. ft. and it's conforming. I think you submitted 741 sq. ft. livable floor are. The Building Department says it's less they probably took out the screened porch. March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think I (inaudible) screened porch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I'm saying Building took it out. It's conforming in either case but just so you know that's not considered livable floor area. So you're proposing to remove all the plumbing, all the existing electric and so on. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Anthony Portillo 10200 Main Rd. I'm the architect for the application. Good afternoon Board hope you had a nice lunch. The current conditions of this garage that was converted into an apartment was from the previous owner I just want to make that clear to the Board. The owner now had nothing to do with that and their intentions is obviously to put in a proper accessory apartment and part of that application for a proper accessory apartment is they wanted to add to the existing structure. The existing structure is the non- compliant the existing portion of the structure is the non-compliant portion as you can see from the site plan. So that accessory building that was there the garage was always existing non-compliant. Everything we're proposing is compliant to the setbacks: We don't have any lot coverage issues. We have designed an IA system, we have not applied yet because we need approval from the Board so that the Building Department can sign our letter for the Health Department but we are applying for a new septic system which will service both the main dwelling and the accessory apartment. As you can see we have enough parking (inaudible) parking layout. The current plan is to lease it to the owner's daughter Elizabeth Kelly and the owner is retired and is now the primary residence of the front home. So we basically constructed a one bedroom apartment propose a one bedroom apartment pretty much open layout a small screened porch. That's our proposal and I don't know if you guys have any further questions I can answer them. MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. MEMBER LEHNERT : My only question was the septic and he answered it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions on this application? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did have one, it would appear that the storage loft that's in there is fairly new wood, is that right or wrong? Is that always been there or was that recently? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No work was done by the current owner. We're going to basically take the thing down and kind of rebuild it in a sense. We're keeping like three walls essentially. MEMBER LEHNERT : That's not going to be there when your done anyway. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No that's not the plan. March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The storage Loft is to be removed. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Perfect, then I don't have any questions. I think there's a lease we do have a lease in there. I mean we do have a birth certificate we know it's the daughter. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But the lease is a signed but undated I mean I'm just looking at the details it's not going to change any outcome particular. No I don't have any other questions. I don't think any Board Members have any questions so I'm going to ask anyone in the audience who wants to address the application to please come forward. GREG BLASKO : My name is Greg Blasko and we own the adjacent property 1355 to 1265. What's the zoning for dwellings on this lot? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The zoning for a dwelling is one family'dwelling. GREG BLASKO : Okay so right now you have an illegal dwelling on this property that was a garage that has a bathroom ,and a kitchen area. It's actually an illegal dwelling it's not an apartment and the town should know that. Second, where does the bathroom waste in this current garage going to go? MEMBER DANTES : I understand your question but he's submitting an application to create a legal accessory apartment that's what before us. If there's a code. enforcement violation that's not really something that we deal with. GREG BLASKO : Okay this is not an apartment, it's an illegal dwelling. MEMBER DANTES : I understand what you're saying but that's not the application before us. The application is an accessory apartment and that's what we're reviewing for what "he's going to do in the future. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do understand that a prior owner used that building improperly that it was supposed to be a garage, that's what the Certificate of Occupancy says. The current owner is attempting to remedy those illegalities by coming to this Board to create a healthy safe legal apartment not considered a dwelling it is accessory to the owner's principle residence and may only be used by a member of his family on a lease agreement. GREG BLASKO : The other way to remedy this situation is to take the bathroom and the kitchen out and restore it to a proper use as a garage. March 2,2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is up to the applicant, that is not up to this Board. He's come before us for a perfectly legally permitted use provided it meets certain standards and that's what we're here to question today to make sure that it does. GREG BLASKO : What's the difference between a house and a separate apartment? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The size. GREG BLASKO : And what's the difference between two dwellings on a lot? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two dwellings on one lot are not permitted but a single family dwelling with an accessory structure that is no greater than 750 sq. ft. of livable floor area is legally permitted under the zoning code so long as the applicant comes to the Zoning Board and applies for an apartment and the only people that can be in that apartment are either a family member which we have documentation in our file will be the case or someone who is eligible on the Town of Southold's Affordable Housing Registry for workforce housing that's it. They can't rent it at market rate, they can't rent it on a two week basis it must be year round. GREG BLASKO : How would the town enforce that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Code Enforcement. GREG BLASKO : It's been rented in the past,you said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know what happened in the past, it wasn't GREG BLASKO : So if you don't know what's happened in the past how do wouldyou know in the future if it's being rented or not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because it is now going to be legally established and there will'be monitoring the Building Inspector makes an annual inspection of accessory apartments in accessory structures and they'check to see who's living in it, they check to make sure it conforms to all building safety codes and so on. It will be monitored on an annual basis now by the Building.Department. GREG BLASKO : There's been three owners of that property in the last eight years so things happened. Mr. Kelly sells that apartment and a new person comes in and looks at it as a rental income with two dwellings on it and then what happens then? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're asking theoretical questions that GREG BLASKO : It's not theoretical it happens. March 2,2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know what Mr. Kelly's plans are I don't know GREG BLASKO : No I'm asking what the Board would do in that case, would somebody come in and buy that property and be able to rent out both of,those MEMBER DANTES : Not legally, I mean you're asking us to theorize to regulate what's criminal activity. We're not a law enforcement agency we regulate zoning. If people do things that are illegal then it's the same as if someone robs a store. Someone would have to notify the authorities to investigate. GREG BLASKO : Okay so given this situation on our family's lot we have a shed in the back yard so we want to take down the shed and put up a two car garage.Then we put a bathroom in that and then we come to the Town Board and say you know,what we want to change this from an improper use of a garage to an apartment, you're going to approve that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It depends it's not an improper use of a garage. If in fact it's a garage you're entitled to a half bath in it as of right and ifyou decide you want to use it as an apartment you'd have to come to the Zoning Board and do the same thing that Mr. Kelly is doing which is to apply to legalize the changed use from a garage into an apartment but with great limits on who you can rent it to. It would either have to be a child, a brother, a sister it would have to be a blood relation and that would have to be documented. We have a birth certificate in our file that it is to be his daughter or it would have to be someone that you get a letter saying from the it used to be Denis Noncarrow the Affordable Housing Advisory Commission special individual who provides oversight on who is qualified by income to be on that list. The Town Board created code basically to say we want to leverage more apartments because they're more affordable people can't afford to live out here so much anymore, we're going to leverage more units out or existing structures rather than start building on more land and you know we're going to see if we can do something that's modest but legal. So they changed the code to allow existing garages or barn to be turned into an apartment that under these fairly strict standards which is why he's here, he's not getting an automatic building permit. We're here to make sure that this is legit. GREG BLASKO : So if you inspect these facilities on a regular basis how did that garage become an apartment? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have no idea because we don't inspect and the Building Department was probably not aware that it was being used illegally and no one reported it to Code Enforcement. MEMBER LEHNERT : We're only dealing with the application in front of us right now not what went on in the past. March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : The town doesn't go out and look at people's back yards I mean this is a free society. Unless there's a reason for us to be there we don't go there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any other comments you'd like to make? GREG BLASKO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. Anybody else in the audience? Is there anyone on Zoom? Okay let that person in. JACKIE MCGOWAN : Hello my name is Jackie McGowan and I own the adjacent property to the back side of this property on Riley Ave. I think you've answered my question regarding who would be living in there. I have the same concern as that if it's a family member I understand but it can change in the future and if they are able to rent it you mentioned affordable housing. What does that constitute? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That basically probably somebody who is a teacher or whose a librarian or you know there are many people out here that are working and that are our neighbors but they qualify based on income and that is determined by the Town of Southold Affordable Housing Advisory Commission. The applicant doesn't have to take any person that the town throws at them, they can interview several people and decide who they want to live in their apartment. MEMBER DANTES : The answer to your question is, right now the income cap for a single individual was somewhere at a hundred thousand dollars a year income qualifies as affordable and then that income cap can go up if they're married or if they have children. JACKIE MCGOWAN : So we're not talking about Section 8 housing or anything like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no not at all. JACKIE MCGOWAN : Okay the only other comment, because they are now coming closer to my property line I would ask that some kind of a hedge or something be put up cause our bedrooms are right on that side of that house of where they're expanding to but I would want something there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the existing building is 5 feet I'm sorry 3 feet away from what is probably your property. Is that what you're talking about? JACKIE MCGOWAN :The other side I'm on Riley Ave. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Riley ah okay. 6 March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting JACKIE MCGOWAN : I'm on Riley where they're going to extend out like 15 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see, so they're 44 feet away from Riley from the property line and another few feet to the road okay. JACKIE MCGOWAN : Right but right now they're going to extend this from what I'm looking at they're planning on putting a 15 foot extension bringing it closer to my bedrooms. MEMBER LEHNERT : Oh you're the owner to the east.- CHAIRPERSON ast.CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you share the rear property line, they're rear property line it's your side yard. JACKIE MCGOWAN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so they're going to be 16 feet away and they previously were 11 more feet that that so they were like you know 27 feet,they're now going to be 16 feet. MEMBER LEHNERT : Only 5 is required so JACKIE MCGOWAN : But nobody was living in there, no one was living in there. Now we're going to have yard noise, we're going to have people in the yard right at our bedroom windows that's what I'm saying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What exists currently along that shared property line? JACKIE MCGOWAN :Two bedrooms and our dining area. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We have no objection, we could put there's some foliage already there but we can make it a little denser six to seven foot arborvitaes is I think appropriate. No objection to that. JACKIE MCGOWAN :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay very good. We'll require as a condition of approval that they install a line of evergreen screening along that property line. JACKIE MCGOWAN : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Excuse me, can we just to clarify not the entire property line but just up to line of the building. I just want to make sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah just to from the corner to where let's say where the March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT :To the 44 foot setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 44 foot setback. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That'll be fine thank you. JACKIE MCGOWAN : That's fine, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, is there anyone else that wants to address the application? Okay hearing no further questions or comment I'm going to make a motion to close 'both hearings and 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. HEARING#7750—JOSEPH M. and JOANNE MASCIA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Joseph M. and Joanne Mascia #7750. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 11, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at 1600 Deep Hole Rd. (adj. to Deep Hole Creek) in Mattituck. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Hello again everybody good afternoon, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants. This is (inaudible) a property on Deep Hole Drive in Mattituck. It's a quarter acre 11,000 square foot parcel on Deep Hole Creek with a relatively small cottage type house on it. The existing footprint of the house is non-conforming to the side yard setbacks, it's about 12 feet on one side a little over two and half feet on the other side for a combined 14.7 foot setback to the side yards. The home has been in the Mascia family March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting for many, many years and they're just simply looking to make some upgrades to somewhat modernize the house an improve its appearance. The actual new work is all going to be done within allowable setbacks. It involves a 55 sq. ft. front porch addition and about a 439 sq. ft. first floor addition which will include a new master bedroom. I trust you've been out to see the property and you can see that it's kind of an awkwardly configured home with not much of a curb appeal or entryway at all so the point of the project is to correct that. The applicants are also intending to relocated and upgrade the sanitary system to the front yard and install an IA system. Just briefly to address the criteria, as far as character is concerned as you know Deep Hole Estates back there is characterized by many one and two story homes many waterfront homes that have second stories. This project will not involve any new ground disturbance, all of the construction will be to the existing home. It's not going to extend into the non-conforming setbacks or it's all within the allowable lot coverage. We're just simply looking to bless the existing setback. We do have letters of support that I believe you have from both adjacent neighbors to the property so I don't believe that there's any evidence that an undesirable impact on the neighborhood. As for variance relief or the necessity of it as mentioned the benefit sought is just additional living space with a functional entryway to the home which in light of the pre-existing non-conforming setbacks could not be achieved without variance relief under Walz. As to substantiality, again we just want you to bless what's there no new ground disturbance. The combined side yard setback is and will be what it is now forever. There is no evidence of any adverse impacts to the neighborhood, environmentally. Obviously this neighborhood has numerous one and two story homes. Many of them have non-conforming setbacks and no evidence of any perceivable adverse impacts. As I mentioned with the upgrade of the sanitary system I would suggest that this is obviously a positive step forward environmentally for the property. So with that I'm happy to address any questions that the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON_WEISMAN : I just want to point out one thing, the Notice of Disapproval says the single side yard setback is 2.7 feet whereas the survey shows 2.6 so I think we better say 2.6. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay fair enough thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know we've all looked at it, the houses vary in size all over the place in that neighborhood. The house next door which is a substantial two story house has a very large side yard, it's the only one that would be impacted and this house is still going to be ten times smaller than that house so I don't see MARTIN FINNEGAN : I mean it's less than 500 sq. ft. I mean obviously the roof is going to be pitched a little bit March 2,2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It needs it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : The neighbors are going to be happy.. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have any questions, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No it's a very narrow lot and this is really a very modest proposal, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7751—CHARLES and KAVITA VANSANT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Charles and Kavita Vansant #7751. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18 based on an application to change a lot line of three existing lots and convey lands in order to create two 415 March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting less non-conforming lots 1) proposed lots A & B at less than the code required lot size of 40,000 sq. ft., 2) proposed lots A& B at less than the code required minimum lot depth of 175 located at 1355 aka 1285 Smith Rd. in Peconic, New York. SCOTT DESIMONE : Good afternoon, Scott DeSimone for the applicant. The applicant owns three adjacent parcels on Smith Rd. in Peconic. Smith Rd. was subdivided in 1913. Most of the lots there currently are configured the same, these three lots are the same size as most of the lots on Smith Rd. If you're standing in the street looking at the three lots, the lot to the right the furthest lot to the right is improved. The two lost to the left are unimproved and all he is looking to do is eliminate the middle lot and make the lot on each lot larger. Because the zoning had been subserviently changed and made more restrictive than when the subdivision was originally improved the lot area and the lot depth don't comply with the current zoning and that is why there is a need for these two variances. The resulting two lots will be larger than most of the lots on the road and there's going to be no negative impact to the neighbors. If anybody has any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, we don't have any documentation about we know that it existed in 1913 on a plat these three lots but we have no way of determining whether or not the lots were merged by force of law in 1984. We will need in order to make that decision SCOTT DESIMONE : Well they're all deeded in different names. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then who owns we don't have deeds for all three different lots and you're trying to say that SCOTT DESIMONE : Well the deeds are in the town records. No one has raised the issue as to whether these lots are single and separate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I'll tell you why, because you sited a part of consolidated town law that allows primarily Planning Boards to look at subdivisions but also allow Zoning Boards to accept applications without a Notice of Disapproval from a Code Enforcement Official that's Section VI. Nevertheless this Board had the Building Department looked at it they would have researched it, we looked at the Assessor's cards, there's nothing on this since before 2015 which is the current owner I believe. So in order for us to make a determination that the Building Department would have made which did not happen as a result of coming directly to us without getting a Notice of Disapproval we have no way of knowing if these lots were merged or not. It could be one big lot in which case then you need SCOTT DESIMONE : If that was an issue for the Board why was the applicant not notified prior to this hearing having had to wait four months? March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because we don't look at these until the application is before the Board which is about a month maybe three weeks before a hearing because we have fifty applications before this so we take them as they come and this was discovered when we examined it. SCOTT DESIMONE : Okay but still you had three weeks to notify the applicant and it could have been resolved here today. So now you're telling me to adjourn this hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct. We need to know whether or not three existing lots are there or one lot in which case it's still a subdivision and it's probably not going to come out any differently but we have to do it according to legal procedure yes. SCOTT DESIMONE : When is the next hearing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our next hearing is April 6th SCOTT DESIMONE :That's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But we will need to have those documents prior to that hearing if you can do that we'll put you on for April, if not SCOTT DESIMONE : You'll this afternoon. MEMBER DANTES : Leslie do you want the deeds or do you want the single and separate? SCOTT DESIMONE : You want single and separate searches? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want single and separate searches yes absolutely. SCOTT DESIMONE : Alright I'll consult the Town Attorney as to the necessity of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine. SCOTT DESIMONE : I'd also like to bring to the Board's attention CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was actually in fact the Town Attorney who discussed this with me and concluded that a single and separate search was what the ZBA was entitled SCOTT DESIMONE : That's okay I'll just confirm that conversation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine you're entitled to do that. SCOTT DESIMONE : I'd also like to bring to the Board's attention that in your amending the schedule of fees, this application is not covered under your current schedule. 42 March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn't amend it the Town Board did. SCOTT DESIMONE : You went to the Board and asked it to be amended, I'm just letting you know so that it can be corrected that this application does not fall under any of the within.the fee schedule and it should be corrected. I had to negotiate the fee with the former Town Attorney because it was not in the fee schedule. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Discuss it with the current Town Attorney, you're going to talk to him about a single and separate. SCOTT DESIMONE :Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to . address the application?Anyone on Zoom? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Leslie did we also need a Notice of Disapproval because,ofthe garage situation and potentially a front yard? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well taking one step at a time. We're not going to look at variances right now, right now we need to look at the lot,line changes. We're going to adjourn it subject to single and separate and if it's not in in time for legal-notice MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Should it be without a date or you want April? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't know how long the single and separate MEMBER LEHNERT : Make it the next available when.he submits his what is required. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we will adjourn this to the next SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie excuse me, did you take a look at the April and May calendar, they're packed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know I doubt that a single if in fact the Town Attorney confirms that he requires a single and separate search which I believe fully is going to be the case then we will have to wait so I think the thing to do is to adjourn the hearing subject to receipt and then we'll see where we can the fastest we can put him on after that. It's the.only fair thing to do. MEMBER DANTES : We also can make decisions on,our own cause I mean we should know.if these lots are merged if we're subdividing one lot into two. 431 March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can make a decision on our own but he has the right to.ask"the Town Attorney but I'm not waiting on confirmation a decision is made the vote of the Board is cast and that's how we're going to proceed unless we are legally incorrect. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I would just add one other bit of information, when you look at the survey and I'm you know not sure.what's going on here but the house and the garage are both straddling the existing lot line so there's you know in my opinion these two lots are definitely merged. MEMBER DANTES : If we don't get a Notice of Disapproval he can come back we grant the variance for the subdivision then he might have to come back again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct but that's the choice he chose. If he had gone to the Building Department as is our historic practice and obtained a Notice of Disapproval this would have been avoided. He chose to do otherwise. I spoke to the Town Attorney that Mr. DeSimone spoke to and he encouraged me to take this application in. I did not feel it was the appropriate process but I was informed that we should do that. So that was what the applicant requested that's what the advice we got from counsel was and that's what we did, that's why he was here today. Yes it's very clear that he's going to need if those lots are subdivided additional variance relief which is another good reason why it would have been appropriate for him to be before the Building Department prior to coming here. It could have all been done at once and he has caused his own delay. It's a self-created hardship as far as I'm concerned. Alright so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing subject to receipt of single and separate searches on three proposed existing lots presumably existing lots. 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 the motion carries. March 2,2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7752—KEVIN and ANNA KENNEDY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is .for Kevin and Anna Kennedy #7752. This is a request for a variance from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's November 15, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 955 Pequash Ave. in Cutchogue. KEVIN KENNEDY : Hi I'm Kevin Kennedy speaking on behalf of my wife as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so this is a proposed swimming pool with lot coverage of 22.6%where the code allows a maximum of 20%. KEVIN KENNEDY : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What else would you like us to know about this application? KEVIN KENNEDY : Well just I guess the back history which you might have seen, back in 2005 the previous owner had done an extensive renovation and he petitioned and was granted a variance to build up to 23% 1 think it was what it was listed at it was approved and he added extensive decking. So then when I bought the property about eighteen months ago being a layman in these kind of code issues I'm seeing a great big yard and say of course there's room for a pool which every real estate tells you, side bar. Then I started digging into it and I saw that the variance was, approved so I said alright I don't want to make it a little bit more palatable for the Board I don't want to go up and show up and say I need 27% in land coverage when theoretically.we're at 23%. So what I did was the deck was kind of old in the back and I put in a building permit which is in process now to reduce the size of the deck and instead I added some hardscape patio which doesn't count on (inaudible) in coverage and now I rolled it back in with the.pool back in with the survey I'm very close to that which was 22.6%which is very similar to what the original approval that was given. I understand that you can't grandfather the deck to a pool but I think it's an .improvement on the property on the visual on the back yard. I don't know what else I can tell you about it. It fits with the septic and all the other stuff which is I guess (inaudible) Building Department conversations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your yard is already fenced. KEVIN KENNEDY : Yes it is fenced, I don't think that's a pool fence though. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no it's not but I was thinking of privacy. KEVIN KENNEDY : Yes it's private, on the one side north side Eileen already has a pool in the yard and she has an above code I think it's a six foot fence she can't see anything. 45 March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's in a side yard and a rear yard you're allowed up to six feet. KEVIN KENNEDY : Oh that's fine I'm happy with that. In the back behind where the pool is there's a shed there that it's already a barrier to the neighbor there and of course I'll put in a code fence and I had the discussion with the wife already about putting up some arborvitaes on I guess that would be the south side just for privacy for the back yard cause we have new neighbors over there as well. I don't know what else I can tell you. I'm kind of trapped in that it's a pretty small lot relative to I guess people I (inaudible). When you look at it and you get that are shot you see the slivers I think I'm one of the skinniest there. I just don't have any legroom anywhere to go so I kind of did the best I could to reduce the existing coverage so that I'm not asking for greater than what was previously approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if the Board has any questions, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No it's more conforming than what was there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : Just one just you know housekeeping here, the wood deck on the survey is that since you're chopped it back or is that what's there now that you plan on removing? KEVIN KENNEDY : If you look at it I can see up here can I walk up here? You probably can't really see the writing but as you go straight up the back that's proposed deck. MEMBER LEHNERT : So where it says wood deck KEVIN KENNEDY : Yeah that's gone where you have that cursor on that's gone and where you just see proposed deck that's actually 4 X 17 that I reduced it. So I took off about 260 something square feet and I'm adding a pool that's 12 X 24, 288 sq. ft. to kind of get as close as I can to net equal so to speak. I submitted pictures, you can see that that deck you know in the application I have shots of it cause they wanted us to show the existing building permit that was open what they were doing. So you can actually see the patio is down there and the small deck that just comes out. MEMBER DANTES : Are you saying the real lot coverage is less Rob because that demolished deck is included? MEMBER LEHNERT : The drawing is showing it as existing when it's not there and I just don't want to get confused. I think he should have that taken off. KEVIN KENNEDY : When you do the math it's done eight ways from Sunday. 4. March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : You're probably correct what the math is but we have to stamp the drawing at the end of our process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What you're removing is (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : You said you filed a permit to remove the deck? KEVIN KENNEDY : Oh yeah. MEMBER DANTES : Can you send us a copy of what you filed? KEVIN KENNEDY : It's already here, it's in the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The demolition permit. KEVIN KENNEDY : Oh yea the demolition it was a building permit with a (inaudible) it shows reducing the deck and adding an outdoor shower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's in here? MEMBER LEHNERT : We don't have that in our packet. We have the copy of the old variance. BOARD ASSISTANT : We have this and it shows an existing wood deck but you're going to be removing that correct. KEVIN KENNEDY : Oh yes. BOARD ASSISTANT : So we need this updated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All you need to do is have them say remove. MEMBER DANTES : From the Building Department you would have gotten the green stamped copy back. KEVIN KENNEDY : Yes I think so. MEMBER DANTES : Can we have a copy of that green stamped copy the one that they approved. KEVIN KENNEDY : I might have it right here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright take a minute and have a look. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was also going to add the dry wells aren't shown. Obviously the applicant needs to install dry wells. March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But we don't need to hold him up for that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe just note that the plan is the survey as it exists. MEMBER LEHNERT : No there's no dry wells shown. KEVIN KENNEDY : I just had this building permit and you said green I don't know what you're talking about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see 'what that is. It says construct deck alterations and outdoor shower to existing single family dwelling as applied for it's a building permit. Well we have a Notice of Disapproval confirming the lot coverage. MEMBER LEHNERT : We can close this subject to receipt of just an amended CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All we really need is when we stamp a drawing then that's kind of a like the bible and if there's anything that's slightly off you're going to wind up back here and not you know with a request from the Building to get a deminimus change. It's just-better if in fact we can stamp plans that we know are correct and the only change on your survey that you gave us is where it says existing deck just say remove to be removed. KEVIN KENNEDY : Can Salice update that? MEMBER LEHNERT : Or if it's already gone just have him erase it from the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah is it gone already? KEVIN KENNEDY : Yeah CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Then fine then just have him remove it,that would be very fast. KEVIN KENNEDY : I can do that and I can what else was I going to say CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While you're doing that have him put in a dry well on the survey for the pool de-watering. Is the pool pump equipment on there? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah where do you propose to put the pool equipment? KEVIN KENNEDY : We haven't finalized that but I'm guessing it's going to be in the I guess towards the back to the left where the shed is at the back end. Honestly it was difficult to get a lot of the negotiations with pool people when I don't have I can't go forward. They kind of say sure let us know when you're ready so I haven't figured out where that should go but I'll go wherever you tell me it should go it'll go.If there's any issue March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Well it's either got to comply with the zoning be a sound deadening enclosure or possibly inside the shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or it can be X number of feet away. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well like we said it's usually 20 feet I mean this is a very narrow lot. We really need to say that it needs to be in a sound deadening enclosure. MEMBER DANTES : He has a shed back there right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah he can put in the shed. MEMBER DANTES : Put it in the shed. KEVIN KENNEDY : Yes I could absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Usually to protect adjacent properties from noise and even the homeowner cause they can make a lot of noise, they're less noisier than they used to be we ask them to either be a certain number of feet away from the property line which you can't do your lot is too narrow or put it in a sound deadening enclosure. A shed's fine if you can stick the pump equipment in the shed that takes care of all those problems and just show us where you want a dry well and have him put down just have him take that deck off it doesn't exist anymore. KEVIN KENNEDY : Okay get the dry well, remove the deck that's already gone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And just say pump equipment inside the shed or something like that. KEVIN KENNEDY : Okay I'll get a hold of the I didn't bring it cause it was from the previous application I actually have you know the stamped survey I had to get the architect plans to change the deck so I had that back from the town with the building permit attached you know the whole thing. Do you need that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's a stamped site plan MEMBER LEHNERT : If it's easier to get a site plan from the architect then the surveyor that's fine too. KEVIN KENNEDY : It was done before I got the building permit to take the deck apart I had to submit that. 491 March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but what we're saying is in order to make sure we stamp the correct drawings which are going to allow you to have 22.6% lot coverage for the pool where it's proposed we are either going to accept the site plan that was drawn by the architect because it's a stamped by a licensed professional that's fine. An engineer can do it or a surveyor. BOARD ASSISTANT : But it doesn't have the pool on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh it doesn't well you can ask him to KEVIN KENNEDY : I guess the rules I thought I can put in one application for both but I couldn't I had to separate the deck from the pool application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh because for the deck you just needed a demolition plan. KEVIN KENNEDY : Exactly but I mean this is I know you want to have it for the records. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the easier thing is so we need an updated site plan or a survey whatever is easier CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whatever will come faster. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It might be easier to get a site plan if you already have that and just add the pool and stuff but you need to show the pool, the dry well, the existing condition with reduced deck size and the outdoor shower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words we want a stamped plan that has everything on it. It's probably faster to go to the architect because that's usually on Auto CAD or some similar kind of software. KEVIN KENNEDY : Alright he didn't have that portion of the yard on his drawing, I don't think so MEMBER DANTES : Maybe it'll be easier to go back to your surveyor and take that deck off that's been taken away, add your dry wall and just put pool equipment in the shed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And the outdoor shower. KEVIN KENNEDY : I'll put that on absolutely. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So we can close it subject to receipt. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't need another hearing we'll just close this today and we'll make a decision as soon as we get the updated survey so that we can stamp that when we March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting write the decision and I think we're good to go then. So I know it's an often much longer delay with surveyors than you wish but really there isn't much this Board can do about it. We are legally obligated to have those drawings in our file to stamp so that when you go to the Building Department for the permit there's no problem. Alrighty so I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an updated survey showing what we just discussed. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. HEARING#7738—CHARLES SALICE C/O NORTH FORK VENTURES, LTD. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Charles Salice c/o North Fork Ventures, Ltd. #7738. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 9, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an applicationto construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and construct an accessory garage at 1) the dwelling is located less.than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) the accessory garage is located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 5 feet located at 2315 Pine Tree Rd. (adj. to Little Creek) in Cutchogue. So this is again you're representing the applicant? GAIL WICKHAM : Yes I am and I'm very pleased that number thirteen as the last item on the Agenda is pretty much right on time. I just want to briefly go over a couple of generalities on this project. I'd like you to note as you've seen from your inspection and the surveys that the existing size of the structures on the property is quite modest and after the project is completed will remain quite modest in size and scope and height particularly in compare to the houses and accessory buildings on the adjoining properties. The property is also heavily vegetated and screening is quite complete because of those features which are kept up. March 2,2023 Regular Meeting There are some limitations on moving the proposed garage towards compliance with the setback. Mr. John Nastasi who's the architect and I'm going to let him address those and other technical points. I'm going to have him do that now. I do note that the Kim just handed me the LWRP exempt decision which is good and as we mentioned in the application there are no waterfront intrusions in terms of the new structure, everything is at the existing setback from the waterfront. So Mr. Nastasi is here to go through the more detailed aspects. JOHN NASTASI : If we reference my drawings that was submitted, I think the most important thing to look at is on the second sheet which is A10 this is an existing cottage that's typical of the Southold area and the first thing I noticed if you look at the existing plan which is the P1 on A100 it shows the existing dwelling and the garage but the most important thing to look at is the tiny gap between the garage and the entry. This house is unique in that you enter the gap between the two buildings and that allows you to enter directly into the kitchen. So if you go to A101 which is the next page there at the second image down on the right shows you that gap that you enter and this kind of really nice architectural breezeway between the structures.You see the water of course and then you immediately make a right into the house which allows you to enter into the kitchen but that character of entering between the garage and the house it's got a very nice very cottagey and when we designed the addition which is the new garage which is the image to the left of the entry the one thing that I really wanted to do is to maintain the character of that entry so we developed sort of a glass breezeway that allows you know to enter at least into the living room with some dignity and not through the kitchen but you still maintain the character of the breezeway. What's really nice about that breezeway is that even when I submitted to the Building Department they misread the drawings cause they thought it was still opened and open air. I think that's a good misreading because it feels open and airy but it also allows the owner to enter into that space and make a right into the living room so you don't have to you know trapes through the kitchen to get into the living room. So the garage is just coming straight out and it aligns with the existing garage which will be converted to sort of a guest suite and because this is a small cottage having the guest suite in the old garage gives the guests a little bit of more privacy and dignity so that your guests are in kind of you know in your business when they're staying over. The side yard setback is existing 2 feet, we're maintaining the 2 feet and I think I tried to think about moving the garage into compliance but once you move that garage a couple of feet into compliance so you solve the zoning table but you've ruined the whole thing. So that's kind of where we're at. We're under the allowable height, under the lot coverage so it's a modest structure and it maintains it's sort of cottage architectural vibe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The lot's only like 75.4 feet wide. It's a charming structure it's very authentic in its architectural style. This is very sensitively done and we were of course all out there and looked at it. It's not visible to the street you know the side property lines are totally March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting screened by hedges and landscaping. The adjacent house you know next to the accessory garage is very large and this will be much smaller still than that house. As Gail pointed out it's LWRP exempt, let me just enter into the record that the proposed new accessory garage will be at a 2 foot side yard setback which is what the existing accessory garage is now and the code requires a minimum of 10 feet and that the proposed let's see it says single family dwelling once they're attached MEMBER LEHNERT : (inaudible) the denial calls it 5. GAIL WICKHAM : The accessory MEMBER LEHNERT :The accessory is at 5. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah no, no MEMBER LEHNERT : The side yard requires setbacks 5 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 5 feet yeah MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You said 10 CHAIRPERSON WEIMSMAN : Oh alright I'm sorry no it is the code requires 5 foot so it's not that huge of a variance but well I think the conditions are what they are and you're not really being more egregious with a new accessory garage it's already there. I don't really have any questions I think it's pretty straightforward. Anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions on this one? MEMBER ACAMPORA : What about the septic system? GAIL WICKHAM : The septic system is going to be replaced, it's as you can imagine not a new system. It will be replaced-by an IA system. The electrical line which currently comes in from the street and goes over onto a pole in the (inaudible) property to the north will be replaced by an underground line on the other side of the property and the water is public underground. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that answers that. Rob anything? MEMBER LEHNERT : Just one question, the proposed garage can it be conforming to the 5 feet? March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting JOHN NASTASI : As I presented it can be conforming but once you make it conforming you sort of kill the character of the original house so it kind of defeats the purpose of trying to maintain the charm of the original cottage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In addition in order to enter you would have to literally walk behind the accessory garage to get into that what you're calling a breezeway connection but all that visual transparency that just shoots your eye straight out to the water it's completely ruined and you know it's very well screened I mean it's I think it's the right reason to ask for a variance. Nick any comments? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No Rob asked the question I wanted to ask,, if you know if it's something that one could do and I understand the design element it's a beautiful property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It really is. Nobody else is in the audience, is there anybody on Zoom? GAIL WICKHAM : Do you want a photograph in part of the sign posted? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We saw it which is a very welcomed sight. You cannot imagine how frustrating it is when there's no address out on a house or the post office box is down the street and then there's no yellow card. So motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye ,MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. Motion to close the meeting. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye March 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES•: Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye March 2, 2023 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 : March 10, 2023 Sri