Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/04/2023 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 May 4, 2023 10:08 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member (Vice Chair) KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant May 4,2023 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Richard Martino#7694 4 1280 Corey Creek, LLC#7774 4 Sand Lennox, LLC#7762 5 - 9 Hollander Jr. Living Trust#7768 10- 14 Hollander Jr. Living Trust#7769SE 10- 14 Richard C. Jensen Jr. Estate of Richard C.Jensen 16- 23 John Hochstrasser#7771 23 - 27 David and Sondra Russel#7765 27- 37 David and Sondra Russel#7766 27 - 37 Nicholas Aliano#7770 38-48 Chris Caufield #7772 48-50 Regina Calcaterra #7773 50- 51 Domeluca LLC#7778 52- 55 Thomas C. Bauer and Jenifer Courtney Bauer#7779 56- 61 Liane Scaduto#7786 62- 64 May 4,2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the May 4, 2023 Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please rise and,join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. The next part of the Agenda has to do with Resolutions regarding a SEQR determination. This is a resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as'Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review, (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 including the following; Sand Lennox, Hollander and Hollander, Jensen and Jensen, Hochstrasser, Russell and Russell, Aliano, Caufield, Calcaterra, Domeluca, Bauer and Bauer and Scaduto, so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The next item on our Agenda is a possible draft resolution for Robert Pagnozzi. I think we're still in the process of preparing the final draft and having it reviewed. Is that correct? Okay so I'm going to make a motion then to table this to the Special Meeting in two weeks May 18th. So there's motion to table this to May 18th, is there a second? , t MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7694—RICHARD MARTINO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a request from the applicant Richard Martino to adjourn. Is there a date Kim that the request to adjourn to or no? It's without a date that's right. Alright motion to adjourn Richard Martino#7694 without a date. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7774—1280 COREY CREEK, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now we also have another motion to adjourn 1280 Corey Creek, LLC#7774. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the July 6` Regular Meeting. 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 May 4,2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7762—SAND LENOX, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Sand Lennox, LLC #7762. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 15, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and to construct a new single familydwellingat 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 1450 Salt Marsh Lane (adj.to Long Island.Soun.d) in Peconic.. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning everyone, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. A little historical background on this one that would be of assistance to the Board. We had originally gone to at the request of the Zoning Board gone to the Trustees with the original application with approximately a 67 foot setback from the top of the bluff. The Trustees wanted-it further back, we redesigned it and set it back to 80 feet and at the same time basically then requested at the particular time set it 10 feet within the 40 foot yard setback. Having received that permit I then came to the Zoning Board and in your wisdom you felt that 80 feet was not sufficient. You then required that we move it back 100 feet and you then approved the setback to be 30 feet to the front yard at the same time, that was what was before you. The difficulty was that if you look at the design the building area left is skewered on an angle primarily and basically the house originally that we had redesigned for the Trustees is approximately 30 feet front to back roughly because it has to be angled within that and then that skewered changed. When we moved it back to the 100 feet primarily, if we kept it at the 30 feet the house would be about 15 foot wide at that particular point. So the request is to get an additional 20 feet to the front yard. It's a unique location from this perspective, it's a dead end road, there's no traffic past it and there is a it's a two (inaudible) road it's a 33 foot wide road. Peconic Land Trust is on the other side there's no development there. So essentially it's pretty much it's its own little area. Being within 10 feet of the front.property line isn't going to have an impact on any neighbor any adjacent neighbor. If you had gone up there you might have seen the construction going on next door which is going to be fairly equal roughly with the setback which you had given us the last time to be the 100 feet.This is a truncated lot, it doesn't have the depth that the lot adjacent to it does. It goes back further this is all we have so given the 100 feet setback and trying to get a reasonably sized house in there which would be about roughly 30 feet front to back. We redesigned it and we were able to get the IA system in there. I did note that the LWRP had some concern about taking trees down within the 100 feet their comments. The Trustees had addressed that primarily in their permit and also in the submittal there. For every tree we take down whether it's dead or dying within 100 feet we'll replace the tree and that's how their permit and that's how they ameliorated the concern of the LWRP on the matter of the tree cutting within the 100 feet. Are there any questions of me? May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's start down there, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : Mike I think I asked this in the last hearing but can you guys build a conforming house here? MIKE KIMACK : No, not to the 30 foot, no. If you take your layout design draw a line halfway through it that's really what was given to us. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm not saying this design I'm saying can you build a conforming house on this property? MIKE KIMACK : Conforming to MEMBER LEHNERT : The code MIKE KIMACK : No we can't. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well I would argue they were previously granted a 30 foot setback a 30 foot front yard setback and still have you suggested 15 feet I scaled it, it's closer to 20 feet MIKE KIMACK : There's 20 feet on the angle Nick and then if you square the house it's about 15 feet if you're trying to square the house which we did within that skewered area. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did you scale it out as far as in like a charrette to see what.sort of home you can build in that location? MIKE KIMACK : This house has been designed twice, I mean it's a reasonably sized house to fit in that particular area. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but it's now encroaching into the front yard beyond the relief that we previously granted. MIKE KIMACK : Only because originally when we came to you with the approval of the Trustees we had an 80 foot setback and you deemed it you added an extra 20 feet to it (inaudible) back. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right with the rational that we'd rather grant a reduced front yard setback than a reduced waterside rear yard setback. MIKE KIMACK : Yes but at the same time what was before you was something that was locked in, we were asking for 80 feet and we were asking for 30, you granted 100 feet and you granted 30. So then we ended up with a very truncated building envelope that would not be desirable to put anything of any reasonable significance within. As a result of that basically I'm r May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting coming back to the Board asking for relief since I had to move it back 20 feet from the top of the bluff to get relief from the front yard which the last time I think your comments were it wasn't really because it's a dead end road because we're not going any further it wasn't something that was going to be creating any kind of precedence. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well that was the rational that we're allowing that because of the nature of the road. I think at the same time of course the hope was that you redesign the project to conform to the relief granted. MIKE KIMACK : We designed it twice Nick basically and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a difficult lot. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah it's not an easy lot primarily in order to get this septic system in, to get the IA system in etc. We only had that I mean if you look at the skew on that from front to back on that particular one to get in with the decks and everything like that we only had really about 15 or 16 feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I use one example that's I think it's 17 feet wide, the Bombara house on North Sea Drive which is also a bay front property, it can be done. MIKE KIMACK : I know that house, I know next door what's going on with the property. Basically the Zoning Board is to basically grant relief when it's reasonably necessary to allow that. I mean we are required what-you ruled to be 100 feet back from the top of the bluff which we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike how has the design that's in front of us now changed from the design we saw last time? MIKE KIMACK : We had to take off a lot of the decks in order to move it in, in order to fit it in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the house is the same you've removed some decking? MIKE KIMACK : In order to truncate it within this area here we removed the decking and we shifted I don't have the original design in front of me primarily but there was more decking off to the one side I think off to the northwest corner of that house there was more decking in that area that went into the 100 foot setback. I believe that they redid the house also in order to conform internally with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean I didn't keep the original plans either but it seemed to me when I looked at it that it looked pretty much the exact same house (inaudible) before. MIKE KIMACK : It's not unlike the configuration that was originally May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought that it was the same house. MIKE KIMACK : It was redesigned in order to fit into this particular new request basically. Obviously the 30 feet would allow us a very truncated house and it would only be if you look at what you've got now just draw a line halfway down the middle of it and that's what you got left 30 feet back. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's still a large house plus you have a proposed roof deck all kinds of other improvements that (inaudible). MIKE KIMACK : Well you have to fit it within the (inaudible) there's no other place to put, if anything is going to happen it has to happen within this footprint within this perimeter. MEMBER DANTES : What about moving the septic system to the other side of the property and then sliding the house over this way the front yard setback (inaudible)? MIKE KIMACK : The reason that the septic is there Eric is I have to go and get a variance anyway from Health Department. You see where the existing well is? MEMBER DANTES : Yep MIKE KIMACK : You see the distance 100 feet? MEMBER DANTES : Yep MIKE KIMACK : See the well on the other side it's 100 feet? This is equally distanced between the two. Also the well for the property which is up by the house to be removed and demolished is also 100 feet. I mean I have to go for a variance. This was put into a location where it would be equally balanced between each one of the wells in order to more accommodate what the Health Department will be looking for in terms of distance. I don't know whether the well hits the 40 foot magic line onto the top of the screen the 100 foot. It hasn't been drilled yet it might. On the anticipation that it doesn't that was put into a point to equally distance between the existing wells. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? Is there anyone on Zoom who wants to address the application? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the application? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have one more question, you testified the last time that the 30 foot setback was what you required to get the IA system and a turning radius in here can you speak to that? May 4,2023 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : We did basically the 33 foot right of way Rob allows because the driveway there if you drove up there, there really isn't a driveway in the place it's just a grass area through there. We can place the driveway anywhere within that 33 feet primarily. You can see it's a little truncated by putting it up against one side of the right of way it's a little bit of a tight by extending and (inaudible) on the other side we're able to swing it around within that 10 foot. We did it with a little bit more ease than the last time because we had the extra 20 feet where I came down the middle of the road and then swung in there. MEMBER LEHNERT : Where are you proposing to park cars? I mean right now it looks like you're putting it on someone else's property. MIKE KIMACK : Well basically it would be basically on that one area. They got the right of way to the road a right of way to the driveway on a dead end road Rob no one else is coming down that way. It's not unusual not all properties are like this but a lot of properties along beachfronts etc. have areas where the parking basically goes into the MEMBER LEHNERT : Every other house on that road has parking on their property. They're not using a road be it a dead end at this lot they're not using a road as their parking area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code requires on-site parking, two for a principle dwelling. MIKE KIMACK : Anymore questions of me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7768 &7769 SE— HOLLANDER JR. LIVING TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board I'm going to open there's two of them I'm going to open them at the same time is for Hollander Jr. Living Trust #7768. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's December 23, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an as built" accessory garage addition at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 485 Old Woods Path in Southold. Hollander Jr. Living Trust #7769SE, applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is the owner of the subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at the same location 485 Old Woods Path in Southold. Is someone here to represent the application? MIKE KIMACK : Good morning, Mike Kimack on behalf of the applicant. We're on the variance? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can address them simultaneously, I can review the MIKE KIMACK : In many respects with the variance basically the variance would be required in order to have the Special Exception so it would be that. We're requesting a variance, the garage the original garage when it was a garage had a C.O. on it and then there was a shed behind it that had a C.O. on it and that particular shed you can see was fairly close to the property line. Then the applicant built and attached the two together primarily and it's that addition primarily that attaches the shed to the garage that we're requesting a variance for. It doesn't come any closer to the property than the back corner of the shed as it now exists. It just connects the garage to it on a straight line on the backside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a 1.2 foot side yard setback correct? MIKE KIMACK : It's 1.2 foot to that one corner of the shed Leslie. The addition is a little bit further in primarily the addition is about 2 some odd feet. It's not exactly shown on this particular one here. (Stepped away from the microphone-inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the apartment is already built, it's been occupied, the applicant is now requesting to legalize it? MIKE KIMACK : Right MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To that point, how did it come to be that it was built this addition was added, kitchen installed etc.? 0 May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : That all occurred I'm not quite I can't give you a time period on that one because they brought me into this after everything was done in order to try to get it all legalized. I would imagine it was probably built within the last ten years from the looks of it from what's in there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How was the problem discovered? MIKE KIMACK : It wasn't they asked me to bring it in and legalize the apartment to bring it before the town. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So they did the work without permits realized the mistake or the error and now wish to clean it up? MIKE KIMACK : Right that's a neat way of saying it Nick. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the applicant built the addition? MIKE KIMACK : Yes the applicant built the addition and then the applicant CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who is residing in that apartment or is residing in it? MIKE KIMACK : Family members, I think the daughter is the one who is also on the lease the proposed lease. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the daughter live there full time year round? MIKE KIMACK : No they're moving out there they're retiring and moving out obviously. She's out there she's a resident right now but they're relocating and the daughter comes and goes it's not anything on a full time basis. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's more like a guest cottage for the daughter? MIKE KIMACK : Yes guest cottage for the'daughter basically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is anyone else staying in there? MIKE KIMACK : Not that I know of. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Family members or anything like that? MIKE KIMACK : What it was told to me it's just the daughter when she comes out to stay there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Doesn't the resident have to be full time? May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : She is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You just stated that the daughter is not full time. MIKE KIMACK : But the owner of the property is and they reside in the main house. MEMBER LEHNERT : Doesn't the renter have to be full time also? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The tenant has to be full time. MIKE KIMACK : On the apartment? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's meant as affordable housing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or family member. MEMBER LEHNERT : But the family member must be a full time resident. MIKE KIMACK : The code doesn't say that, the code says that you have to be a resident in order to be either in the primary home or in the apartment itself but the other person doesn't have to be a resident. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it requires an annual rental. So the rental is definitely for full time occupancy but there's nothing that absolutely spells out the fact that the occupant must be there three hundred and sixty five days a year. You know part of the dilemma here is, with these kinds of applications people turn them into guest houses. People just basically you know have family members coming and going or whoever they want and they get somebody to sign a year lease and that's it. I mean it's easy to do, your daughter is not going to say no to you she'll sign the lease and then we wind up with accessory apartments that were not intended to be used by the code in that fashion. It's a town wide problem, it's not unique to this application particularly but that's something that is up for discussion fairly soon before the Town Board. There's a review of the entire accessory apartment code that's coming before the Town Board at a Public Hearing. When is the date of that hearing? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the 9th I believe, May 9th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Soon, next week. We'll see what happens but in any case the ZBA has (inaudible) MIKE KIMACK : But under current ones I gave you a lease agreement for the daughter, her name is Katherine Hollander. tz May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and we have a birth certificate and we have you know you're proposing a new IA system to serve the house and the apartment. MIKE KIMACK : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have shown three off street parking spaces. It is confirmed by the Building Department to be conforming at 631 sq. ft. of livable floor area. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it's 621 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 631 is written down. MEMBER DANTES : It could be a discrepancy between the plans and the Building Department calculation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's still conforming. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 631 so apologies. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have in the record a deed, we have a driver's license with the name and the address of the applicant/owner, we have tax returns with the address, we have utility bills, affidavit of principle residency and the STAR exemption she says she does not qualify. Anything from the Board anything else from the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have a question regarding the street name, I've always known it as Old Woods Path I see on the applicant's (inaudible) it says Bordenson Rd. MIKE KIMACK : No it's always been Old Woods Path I'm not quite sure where that one came from. Quite frankly that's new to me Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is from PSEG. So is this in fact for the site or for a different location? MIKE KIMACK : I'm not quite sure because on the town map and everything else it's all Old Woods Path. Could it have been something that was named I mean I think that was the original name I don't know where PSEG would have come up,with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know either. MIKE KIMACK : I know that the I'm not quite sure Suffolk County Water came through there and extended the water line and paved it pretty much right up to their house. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom Liz that wants to address this application? Is there anybody in the audience?Anything else from the Board? Motion to close both hearings reserve to another date is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. I'm going to go to some Resolutions. We have to wait till 10:40 for the next one. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday June 1, 2023 at 9:00 AM. 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. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held April 20, 2023 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to amend Decision No. 7678 John Smyth located at 26745 Rt. 25 in Cutchogue, so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to amend Decision 7717 Nicholas Tzoumas 35 Clark Rd. in Southold so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to recess, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Good morning, for those who are on with us on Zoom and you wish to make a comment on a particular application I ask that your raise your hand. I will see that your hand is raised and I will give you further instructions on how to speak. I see we have one phone number, for that person using the phone number for you to raise your hand please press *9 if you would like to speak and then I will let you know what to do next. Thank you. HEARING#7764—RICHARD C.JENSEN JR., ESTATE OF RICHARD C.JENSEN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Richard C. Jensen Jr., Estate of Richard C. Jensen #7764. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 4, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at 4155 Bay Shore Rd. (adj. to Shelter Island Sound) in Greenport. Pat good morning. Let me just enter into the record here the specific variance request. This is to demolish and construct a new two story single family dwelling with a side yard setback at 6.2 feet where the code requires a minimum of 10 feet and secondly a combined side-yard setback at 16.10 feet and the code requires what is it 25. Can I begin by asking you a question please? How high above the road grade is the required retaining wall and elevated plinth? PAT MOORE : I'm so glad you asked I predicted that may be a question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it seems to have two sets of steps going up. Please give me the answer. PAT MOORE : Let me introduce who's here that way we just get everybody on the record. I have The Jensens which are both of them the son, grandson actually from the original, Richard and Kashia and Patrick Christian is the Architect from the Architectural firm. I'll have him discuss the height of the retaining wall footprint. PATRICK CHRISTIAN : Our street elevation is an elevation four and our top of wall for the retaining wall for the sanitary system that elevation is 6.5 only to get it out of the water table (inaudible) septic system. MEMBER LEHNERT : Approximately 2 %feet. PAT MOORE : Yeah. 16 1 May 4,2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN-: Is a fence going to be required around it? PATRICK CHRISTIAN : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No fence required. What else do we have, is there on-site we've had them before where they had to actually put a safety fence around. The elevation was so high they were sitting on the water table. Do you have two sets of steps proposed is that wide enough for two cars or deep enough for two cars? PATRICK CHRISTIAN : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code requires two on-site parking spaces for principle dwelling. PAT MOORE : We're going to have I mean we'll do our best. I think the issue is going to be the distance of the sanitary to the wall. The minimum setback is 20 1 think, 10 feet from the distribution but this from this measurement the expansion pools so I think the Health Department requires 10. We could expand the parking area up to the point it reaches the 10 foot separation between the expansion pool so it would give a little more room but we have our restriction. I mean the actual property line Bay Shore Rd. has a lot of frontage before the road actually starts so a lot of the homes on the block they park in front of their property but we'll do our best to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I actually haven't seen that I know that street very, very well and you almost never see other than a guest occasionally but pretty much everybody pulls their cars onto their own property. PAT MOORE : A lot of the houses there are getting retaining walls so I don't know, some of them are like dead end like the guy on the very far has a retaining wall but that's kind of a dead end area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's because everybody is on the water table and now that IA systems are required and they're going to have to be elevated in-order to comply with Health Department. That's a good thing and a bad thing. (inaudible) changing the topography, there's a lot of land disturbance and it's changing the visual character of neighborhoods. It's just the way it is. PAT MOORE : I mean we can show you a larger parking area if you want after the hearing and we'll expand it. We just have to measure out the 10 feet, I don't know exactly maybe the expansion pools can go I just don't know. Rob.you may know, the Health Department allow a reduction of the distance of the 10 foot MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't believe they would they're hard and fast rules. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think you'd need parking at least 20 by 24 or something to that degree no? As the design professional what would be the minimum space for two parking spots? 1 PATRICK CHRISTIAN : The minimum like a compact spot MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't think you want to calculate on a compact spot. PATRICK CHRISTIAN : I don't see a simple way with the 50 foot property width to manage two spots wide and get a compliant sanitary system. MEMBER DANTES : I think they just have to do their best and it is what it is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then how do you meet the town code? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They won't. MEMBER DANTES : You need a variance from that or you go to Health Department for a variance but I don't think the Health Department (inaudible). PATRICK CHRISTIAN : We did discuss that with the Engineer, he said if it was any less than 50 feet wide in width we could pursue a variance but he didn't see an easy way to get one with meeting the minimum lot width requirement for a sanitary system. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Parking has not been cited on the Notice of Disapproval so how do we address this? MEMBER DANTES : We never do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They aren't going to quote parking, it's not in the bulk schedule but it is in the code. PAT MOORE : I've never had in the thirty five years I've never had to get a variance for parking this is a first. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think they write up Notice of Disapprovals for that but that is the code as you know, you have to have two on-site parking spaces for a principle,residence. PAT MOORE : I know for B&B it's very specific. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's because of the number of rooms and rental spaces and you have to have two for the principle dwelling and then one for each rented room. That's a lot of parking but you know May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I have a question Leslie, I'm looking at the site plan here and you've got your driveway, you have one, two, three, four it looks like four steps up and you're on some sort of raised area and then you go to the other end you have more steps. Are those steps further up or are those steps down? PATRICK CHRISTIAN : Those are both access to the raised grade to accommodate the sanitary system so it's really if you look at the 10 foot minimum from the retaining wall on the south side of the property and then to that distribution box close to the residence that's our town required (inaudible) so that's really grade and it's just goes up to that right there and back down MEMBER DANTES : Then the house area will be from the basically based off the existing grade? So then when I look at your elevation plan it looks like a ridge height of 24 feet 8 inches. That 24 feet 8 inches from the raised patio or 24 feet 8 inches from the existing grade? PATRICK CHRISTIAN : Existing grade. MEMBER DANTES : Thanks CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other questions from the Board at this point? Okay I'm going to see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address this application. PAT MOORE : Did you want me to discuss the application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please summarize and don't read what you've already written. PAT MOORE : A very quick summary, you know that this property the family has owned this property since 1946, it's part of the Peconic Bay Estates filed map from 1933. We originally hoped to keep the house but it was going to be impossible with an addition to and the extent of the investment to make it conform to both FEMA and New York State building code because our structure would not accommodate the proper insulation and residential code. There was no option here other than a demolition. The house size is all as far as lot coverage conforming, they worked very hard to make it fit on the property. We do show a very small splash pool, that is being reviewed obviously by the D.E.C. so ultimately CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Trustees too you're going to need? PAT MOORE : Yes of course the Trustees. So we've maintained what setbacks we could possibly maintain. The 10 and 15 the new house is actually more conforming than the original house with respect to setbacks. We moved the closer side to the on the west because the neighbor there has much greater side yard. The house on the east as you can see the existing house is two and half feet from the property line so the larger setback is 18 on the east side. May 4,2023 Regular Meeting So it was the process (inaudible) take a very'long time because it was really agonizing, to try and fit everything within the 50 foot wide property and meeting all of the regulations and as you pointed from the beginning the sanitary system having a compliant system on the street side. So this has been a very challenging design and if you have any other questions we're here to answer them. As you know from my application this is a third, fourth generation, third generation-of this property staying in the family so it is important to the family and his children would like to continue to enjoy the property and keep it for many more generations. I think I've addressed your area variance issues. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have, well you know when we went out to the site the whole shoreline along there varies I mean the house right next door has a retaining wall on the a bulkhead rather whereas this is non-bulkheaded and it goes straight really out to the beach. mean it's just gravel and when you talk about a non-disturbance buffer there's really nothing there except a couple of scraggy bushes to not disturb. Quite frankly mother nature is going to disturb them as she's done for a very long time. The house next door is set back farther from I guess their 'back yard technically but has a big patio so you're proposing a 10 foot non-turf buffer PAT MOORE : We anticipate that that would be required by the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably I mean I don't see how you're going to get any grass anyway maybe in the front yard on top of the sanitary but that's it. PAT MOORE : It has remained pretty (inaudible) so lawn is not something that they're accustomed to having there. So yes you point out the most of the challenge here is that Bay Shore Rd. most of Bay Shore Rd. has cement bulkheads that predate. I believe this, one and maybe part of the parcel to.the east maybe one of the few that don't have so it's a real challenge cause D.E.C. assumes jurisdiction and you know it would be a lot easier to develop this property without D.E.C. involvement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're not going to require a bulkhead. PAT MOORE : Oh no, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No MEMBER LEHNERT : They would never do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was going to say please I know they're bad but they can't be that bad. Does any Board Member have anything else? Is there anybody on Zoom? May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting GIOVANNI PATANE : I'm the owner of the house across the street directly across the street from the proposed construction. I just want to make sure that you know it's a very small site that they're working on and there's going to be large construction vehicles, I do not want them parking on my driveway. I have dry wells also I don't see any dry wells on this property. I see leeching pools but there are no dry wells. The thing I'm concerned about is when they do this work especially that retaining wall how they're going to go back and forth and go into the site. They'll probably built it last but I'm concerned about all of the construction equipment that's going to be there and where are they going to park them? I don't want them parking on my grass strip or definitely on my driveway cause I have dry wells located there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does somebody want to address that? PAT MOORE : Oh sure, no the sequence of construction here would have to be the house first, the foundation the house. You might ultimately they're going to work backwards and the sanitary system being at the end of the process because we don't have drivable sanitary system so we would you know they don't have a right to trespass and I think most contractors know not to trespass. So my clients are here, make sure your contractors don't trespass on any private property to accomplish this construction. I did want to point well dry wells we will require dry wells I'm surprised they're not showing on this plan. They would need to be shown for Trustees permit. MEMBER LEHNERT : We have to comply with drainage anyway to get a building permit. PAT MOORE : Yes, but I would want to show where the dry wells are going to be since it's part of their jurisdiction for the Trustees. That will be most likely the dry wells just based on where we have room to put dry wells they would be along the side of the house away from the water. I did want to address one very quick point, we don't know what the D.E.C. is going to do to us with respect to the setback the 35 feet that requires a variance from D.E.C. regulations cause their regulations require 75 feet on both structures. Obviously we are pre-existing so they should have some recognition of that but the pool may be a sacrifice. If that occurs that opens up some lot coverage some square.footage. If the Board I just want to put on the record cause it might require a de minimus request down the line if we can adjust some of the square footage maybe of the deck wherever we have room. If it changes from this obviously we would have to come in with a de minimus but we do have that square footage at the pool. We don't want to sacrifice the pool but you know we don't know what D.E.C. is going to ask. I just want to put it on the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you've got a conforming rear yard setback and as long as it stays conforming whether it's a pool or a deck you know I don't think our Board is going to care. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE,: To the extent it might because our side yard setbacks are non-conforming we would not go any obviously go any closer than the existing side yards that are set here but it might because of Walz we wouldn't be able to let say have the deck extend out even two feet without a de minimus most likely but the Building Department would ask of us. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But you're speaking of de minimus relative to the lot coverage. PAT MOORE : Well lot coverage we conform it's de minimus with respect to side yards. So if the side yard stays no closer than what the Board grants but extends towards the water or to the land the Building Department has typically asked us to get a de minimus. I just want to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I've told them time and time again that if changes that are proposed in no way affect the variances that were granted they have the jurisdiction to simply approve them, they won't. PAT MOORE : They won't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I will. PAT MOORE : I just wanted to put it on the record because we don't know what the final outcome of our permit is going to be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So actually to that point though, one of the questions I did want to ask and I've seen it in other applications it would appear that the lot line or the side yard setbacks are to the actual framing of the house not to the eaves and other projects it's been to the eaves. Now the eaves here are not excessive at least in elevation CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean the soffits the overhangs? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The soffits PAT MOORE : I didn't think that the Building Department considered anything less than two feet to be MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea less than two feet they don't even bother with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They don't look at it. MEMBER LEHNERT :They don't look at it at all. It's always to the framing to the foundation. PAT MOORE : Yea in fact the surveyor sometimes they measure to the foundation on one survey and they come back and measure to the exterior shingles and I end up with differences. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting I think we're okay with that, I appreciate your point because sometimes I have seen them on a stoop you know MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was thinking about different applications that you can't MEMBER LEHNERT: Technically you can't frame without a foundation survey. PAT MOORE : Yes correct, any other questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Anybody else on Zoom Liz? Okay I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All if favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7771—JOHN HOCHSTRASSER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John Hochstrasser #7771. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 13, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing deck and patio to an existing single family dwelling and construct a new raised masonry patio and decking at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 2855 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Hog Neck Bay) in Cutchogue. So this is demolishing an existing deck and part of it is a brick patio on grade attached to an adjacent single family dwelling. You want to do a new raised masonry patio with a side yard setback at 10 feet where the code requires 15 feet and what else do we have here, ZBA#7176 July 19, 2018 granted a 12.8 foot side yard setback for additions and alterations to a single family dwelling. We have on the record a letter of support from a neighbor. You're going to May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting expand the existing deck along the side yard removing the existing brick patio. Mike I have a question, why not just simply maintain the 12.8 foot side yard setback for the new raised patio that,was previously granted by the Board, it's only a couple of feet? MEMBER LEHNERT : It matches the line of the house. MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER : Barbara Hochstrasser I go by Meg. You're talking about the side you want me to just go back to the original CHAIRPERESON WEISMAN : Level it off with the house. MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER : That was the architect's design, to be honest with you I didn't even realize it went beyond or closer until CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See that little funny bump out there, he's got steps going up. MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a bunch of ways to do that. MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER : The only reason was that the back door from the den that is two steps to go in so instead of having it go back down two steps he was making the patio even with that. So that was his design, I thought it was fine but I didn't realize it was going to go further on the property line. I mean I will concede that you know to be even with the foundation of the original part that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. MEMBER DANTES : You're looking at Sheet A-4 on the drawing that's where the two steps you're talking about are for the deck? MIKE KIMACK : I believe so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know which one I'm talking about Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Yea this is the existing, I understand why they did it bump it out to get MEMBER LEHNERT: Two steps down you don't need a variance for just a set of steps. MIKE KIMACK : We would require the variance simply because we were within the 15 feet no matter what. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but you know it seems like reasonable to square it off with the house and maintain the previous non-conforming setback that was granted. May 4,2023 Regular Meeting , MIKE"KIMACK : We can make"the changes and revise and get it to you by the Special, would that work for you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that sounds good yep. Anything else from the Board? Is there anybody on Zoom that wants to address the application? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It was the letter of objection from the neighbor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did I mention that? MEMBER LEHNERT :There was a letter of objection. MIKE KIMACK : There was. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And a letter of support. MEMBER DANTES : I think the objection was (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it was just coming closer to your.neighbor's side yard. If you're willing to put it you know where it already is MIKE KIMACK : It's so heavily treed on that one side it wouldn't matter one way or the other to the (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's very heavily screened by large mature evergreens on that side but MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER : The backyard goes beyond his house (inaudible)" MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's his garage building I think, you're right it's in the front. MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER : (inaudible) towards the water as well on my other side my house is set back up on the hill it's the furthest one his existing house the person who is objecting is further towards the water beyond my patio and his deck also goes beyond and towards the waterside so you know it really doesn't he doesn't look into my yard except further out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's LWRP exempt and I do have a question, wood decking is somewhat pervious because there's slats and there's drainage right on the deck with masonry it's an impervious surface and can you just maybe address any kind of drainage issue cause I did notice the terrain is such that from your house it rolls kind of down toward the water. We want to make sure that any water collected on that impervious masonry surface is norbeing discharged it's probably going to roll right onto your grass and stop but I just want to get into May 4,2023 Regular Meeting the record that there is a difference between a pervious and an impervious surface, it's a pretty big deck well masonry patio. MEMBER LEHNERT : It is,the Building Department will also look at that for them also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They will but I just want to give Mike a chance to does this need Trustees? I don't think so. MIKE KIMACK : I need to go to Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea so they're certainly going to look at that too I guess. So it's Trustees approval is required, okay. I don't know they might require a buffer of some sort down toward MIKE KIMACK : They might require a berm it's possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Berm it up a little so that the water stays pooled on your property and drains there. MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER : Beyond that deck there is planting and a rock wall kind of to hold property up towards the house so if I have to do that along the rest of it I can CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that will be Trustees. I just wanted to bring it into the record. Okay anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Anything else from the Board? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye oh I'm sorry you were going to amend that. I should have basically just adjourned it MIKE KIMACK : Adjourn it to the Special Meeting. 6 May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To the Special Meeting I'm going to take that back, undo roll the video back cause that way you're just going to amend your survey or MEMBER LEHNERT : Can't we close it subject to the plans? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We could I suppose what's the difference. Want to close it subject to receipt of an amended application MEMBER LEHNERT : Or amended plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No has to be an amended application because he's going to change the side yard setback to what the previous side yard setback 12 feet something. Alright want to do that then? Okay motion to close subject to receipt of an amended application for a 12.8 foot side yard setback. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, okay now we did it. HEARING#7765 &#7766-DAVID and SONDRA RUSSELL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN We have two applications from the same family before us, I'm going to open both of them at the same time. David and Sondra Russell #7765. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 15, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct a single family dwelling and to construct an accessory garage upon two (2) merged lots at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3) accessory garage located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 1325 & 1375 Smith Drive So. In Southold. The other one is for #7766, this is a request for a waiver May 4,2023 Regular Meeting of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM1000- 76-2-34.3 which has merged with 34.2 and 35 based on the Building Inspector's November 15, 2022 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lot shall merge until the total lost size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R-40 residential zoning district) again located at 1325 and 1375 Smith Dr. South and 1480 Smith Drive North in Southold. Phew got that out it's the law you gotta enter it into the record. KAREN HOEG : Good morning, Karen Hoeg from Tourney, Latham. I just wanted to point out for the Board that the Notice of Disapproval was amended on March 21, 2023 to reduce some of the variance relief that was needed. We had submitted a supplement on April 12tH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have that. KAREN HOEG : It was a revised addendum. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have any record of that Karen. KAREN HOEG : Okay it was hand delivered and handed in with the amended Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To our office? KAREN HOEG : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You remember doing it? KAREN HOEG : It was April 12tH MEMBER DANTES : Can you just read it to us this way we'll know what you're talking about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't understand why we would not have that in the packet. Donna says she, remembers doing it so we did get it. I just want to make sure SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : What are you missing Leslie? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Notice of Disapproval originally from November 15th and amended March 21, 2023 renewed and amended. We have a new one that came in in April. Donna says she remembers doing it. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I remember adding the addendum. Look in the original in the file that's by you guys. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting BOARD ASSISTANT : It's the one we have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me make sure I have the same, so we're looking at a new single family dwelling with a 59.5 foot bluff setback where the code requires a minimum of 100 feet no, where am I? I turned the page now sorry, so we have a waiver of merger the resulting lot . of 16,750 sq. ft. in the R-40 zone it's going to be 16,750 where 40,000 is required. Proposed construction with a front yard setback of 33.7 feet, the code requiring 35, rear yard setback at 28.9 feet the code requiring a minimum of 35. It's a one story addition to an existing single family dwelling and an attached two car garage. I'd like you to clarify which exactly lot numbers I mean there's one developed lot right and the house MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Two developed lots. MEMBER LEHNERT :They both have houses. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's where I messed up here. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can you just walk us through the chain of events that led us here. KAREN HOEG : Sure, I think it would be helpful to talk about the waiver of merger first. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The variances are the least of our KAREN HOEG : Exactly; correct. So let's start with the waiver of merger of the two back to back parcels which are designated tax lot 34.3 which is also known as 1480 Smith Drive North and 34.2 which is known as 1325 Smith Dr. South. The application also seeks to merge tax lot 34.2 which the Russell's purchased in November of 2021 with the easterly improved adjacent parcel owned by the Russell's known as 1375 Smith Dr..South which is lot 35. The Russell's have owned the improved lot at 1375 since 2011. Mr. Eugene McConnell owns the improved lot at 1480 Smith Dr. North which is identified on the survey as tax lot 34.3 and he had acquired that in 2016 from Marion Hoffman whose now deceased. These lots are all in an R- 40 zone and are non-conforming. Tax lot 34.2 is 10,050 sq. ft., tax lot 34.3 is 13,400 sq. ft. and tax lot 35 is 6,700 sq. ft. So as noted in the Notice of Disapproval which we were just talking about which was amended on March 211t, tax lot 34.2 and 34.3 have merged under Town Code Section 280-10A as they were held in common ownership after July 1, 1983. However it is important to understand the history of the lots which were recognized as two separate tax parcels having been created by the town and the county in December of 1981. So I have it in (inaudible stepped away from the microphone)form 101. r CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's .2 and .3 that merged is that correct? May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting KAREN HOEG : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 34.2 and 34.3 KAREN HOEG : Those two lots were created in December of 1981, they are referenced on the forms that are attached. So initially it was lot 34.1 which was created in the early seventies and then split into two separate tax lots the 34.2 and 34.3. MEMBER DANTES : One question Karen, which is the paperwork I have in front of me has the subdivision lot. KAREN HOEG : If you look at what's on the screen what's shown as the vacant parcel that's 34.2 MEMBER DANTES : It's part of 114 and 113 both part of that tax map number or are they KAREN HOEG : Those are the subdivision lots, this was all part of the (inaudible) farm subdivision back in the forties. So those little circled numbers are the actual subdivision lots so if you look at the top of the survey you can just scroll up a bit it will identify these actual subdivision lots. MEMBER DANTES : So is that little dotted line between 114 and 113 does that mean anything? KAREN HOEG : That is the part of the subdivision lot 114 which was actually when the subdivision was created. A copy of the subdivision map is in the application, it was twice the size. The adjacent parcel to the west got half subdivision lot 114 and this other portion of 114 was combined with subdivision lot 113. MEMBER DANTES : So 114 and part of 114 and 113 are both part of 34.2 now? KAREN HOEG : Correct yes. It's not really clear why the Town Tax Assessor's split the lots from 34.1 into two separate tax parcels in 1981. My only guess is that when the house was built on Smith Dr. North which is tax lot 34.3 that the Assessor divided it into two lots and since 1981 it has been treated as two separate tax lots. I have a copy in the application (inaudible stepped away from the microphone). I have also to submit to the Board which I didn't see in part of the application was tax lot 34.3 was created by the town and the county in 1981 was issued a C.O. for that particular tax lot in December of 1981 when the house was constructed. So for the record I'll just submit these C.O.'s for that lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which one is which? MEMBER DANTES : It's 34.2 is 113 and 114. Let me just walk I'm struggling with May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting KAREN HOEG : It is very confusing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The problem is you get a subdivision map on the survey and then tax map MEMBER LEHNERT : You have to use tax map. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to. i MEMBER DANTES : So then 34.3 then is lot 112? KAREN HOEG : 34.3 is subdivision lots 106 and 107. MEMBER DANTES : So then 35 is 112? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's 34.3 MEMBER LEHNERT : and 112 is 35 KAREN HOEG : Yes 112 is tax lot 35 which is the current home that the Russell's own. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lot 35 MEMBER DANTES : So then 105 is not part of this application at all, subdivision lot 105? KAREN HOEG : No MEMBER LEHNERT : Nor is 112 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think what happened here which maybe I'm jumping ahead, but the lot on the north which is owned by a family called McConnell KAREN HOEG : It comprises subdivision lots 112 and 113 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm not even getting into that I don't have a problem with the subdivision map but I was trying to figure out how they merged and what was going on but the vacant lot was sold to the Russell's from the Estate of Hoffman. Hoffman was the one that built the house on the north KAREN HOEG : Right MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So those two were one and somehow the Russell's purchased the Hoffman lot when'it technically belonged to the McConnell's. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting KAREN HOEG : Not exactly. So what happened was back in 2016 Marion Hoffman.was a widow and she had owned tax lot 34.3 and 34.2. So it was in the Hoffman family up until 2016 held in common ownership although our title report when we did the single and separate said that no these lots have been all single and separate since 1955 which is also submitted as part of the application but lot 34.3 which is currently in the name of McConnell was transferred from. Marion Hoffman in 2016. So it was transferred out of the family in 2016 by Marion Hoffman when she was eight four years old. She since died in 2020 at the age I believe of ninety and her executrix of her estate sold the vacant parcel to the Russell's MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was saying. KAREN HOEG : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing is that when she sold the house the lot should have gone with it because it was merged or at that point it should have been unmerged. So now we're dealing with it KAREN HOEG : We're dealing with it now because when lot 34.3 was sold from Hoffman to McConnell nobody knew about that these two lots were merged and they never knew that I mean it should have been unmerged at that time but nobody knew MEMBER LEHNERT :Then you wouldn't have to deal with it. KAREN HOEG : Right and if you explain to anybody outside of Southold that there's this code provision about transferring outside of the family they look at you like you have ten heads because they don't know what you're talking about because it's not a title issue it's a zoning issue. So that's why we're here today to kind of clean up this issue and as I said before that lot 34.3 never use lot 34.2 it's been treed up until the Russell's purchased it. It was kind of used as a dumping ground for people in the neighborhood and subdivision to discard grass clippings whatever it was but it was never cleared by the northerly lot or never used in any capacity. It has always been treated as a separate lot by the county by the town by people in the neighborhood. So when the Russell's who have lived in the house that they currently live in at 2011 acquired the property and their hope was to put in a small addition to the property add some additional living space. Their current house is under a thousand square feet, they wanted to add a garage a laundry room area so in order to get to that point of the area variance we have to deal with this merger issue. If you like I can go through the history of these lots and how they all came to be, how they are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Karen who's maintaining the lot next to the Russell's home? It's all nice grass mowed so it's May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting KAREN HOEG : Yes they purchased the property in 2021 and have since cleaned it out. People in the neighborhood are very happy that it's no longer a dumping ground. I believe there are some shrubs that have been put there, they put the fence up they've been maintained to it. They have title to it so now they as part of the request to add a garage and a small addition to the house which would conform with lot coverage, GFA we need an area variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do the Russell's own lot 35 let's call it where the house is? KAREN HOEG : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and 34.2 KAREN HOEG : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : which is the grassed lot adjacent right KAREN HOEG : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and they need to unmerge that lot with 34.3? KAREN HOEG : Yes so that they can merge that vacant parcel with their current lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they want to unmerge 34.3 and 34.2 and then merge 35 with 34.2 so they can build their house on it, expansion. KAREN HOEG : Yes,that's correct. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes KAREN HOEG : That's it in a nutshell. They have title to both 34.2 as well as to tax lot 35 and as I said the square footage that they're adding is so minimal the setbacks that they need for the area variances are no further to the front or rear from their existing home. All parties support the application on the waiver of merger. This is kind of a housekeeping issue and it would make lots 34.2 and 35 once they are combined more compliant with zoning and more conforming as a lot. How this configuration came to be over time between 34.2 and 34.3 is a little you know odd the way that the lot is currently shaped and that it fronts on both streets. They've been treated independently since 1980 when the town and the county separated them. I suspect that you know since the Hoffman's have owned it for so many years they had no knowledge that they were you know once they sold one tax lot parcel out to another entity that that would become an issue but here we are trying to clean it up. As I said everybody supports it, the vacant parcel over the years has never been anything but a treed lot. There's been no kind of complaining where people were using it you know the neighbors and stuff, the goal is to as Leslie said is to you know unmerge 34.3 from 34.2 and have 34.2 May 4,2023 Regular Meeting merge with lot 35 so that the Russell's can add this small addition as well as the attached garage to the house. MEMBER DANTES : Why do it this way, why not do a lot line change? KAREN HOEG : Well I think if the Board doesn't grant the merger that's what we would have to do. That's more time and money you know to do.that. The tax lot lines metes and bounds are all have never changed. To do the lot line change I'm assuming you're talking about between lot 34.2 and 34.3. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to suggest the same thing just in light of there is a similar application I think it was on Beach Rd. off of Manhasset. These two small lots where the property actually changed hands title change without the merger without the waiver of merger creating a unique situation just like yours and I think in that case it was a denial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the bottom line is this is what's before us now and I think that's what we need to address okay. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the lot line change is the cleaner. i MEMBER DANTES : Yea but the problem is I mean think about it, you need to get a lot line change to create the lot that merged you get a lot line change to uncreate the lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is not a straightforward as the other one. KAREN HOEG : This gets a little complicated because in 1981 these lots were created as two separate tax lots. If you look at the tax from 1981 to today they show them as two separate tax lot parcels.They both pay taxes on MEMBER PLANAMENTO :(inaudible) Assessor's Office KAREN HOEG : Right but that's how it's always been treated. I mean the property cards will reflect too that these all have been taxed as separate tax lot parcels since 1981 when they were created. Even the Building Department records show that 34.3 was recognized pretty much as a separate tax lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the problem when town up-zoned to create this they did a terrible job in notifying the public and in fact they didn't at all. So everybody's gotten separate tax bills all along. How would you know anything changed? Unless you got stuck like this and have to come before the Board to fix it. I mean it was a good idea when it came to sanitary and density but it had a lot of unintended consequences. About the only thing they actually fixed with this waiver of merger was merger by death which was added because so many May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting people like you know a couple owned two lots next to each other, one for their kids eventually, one of the spouses died the two lots merged because they wound up in the same name instead of checker boarded. That was exempted after that. This is a complicated mess that the town created and the Zoning Board is the one that's given to resolve it. It's very straightforward this is going to be an improved lot, much bigger lot, much more conforming to the R-40 zoning and as long as I now understand exactly what numbers we're looking at I just do want to see what would so once they build now I gotta go to the survey that shows the house MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea this application is different in that they're not trying to create a lot that they're just going to sell off they want to actually merge it to their existing lot to make it more conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one thing I noticed when I was out there is that there is in the north west corner of the lot a shed, I don't know if it's on the subject lot it looks like it is. KAREN HOEG : On the vacant parcel? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not on the survey. It's on the grassy area over there up in the top corner over there. Is that your shed? Okay so we need to get that make sure that the setbacks are okay on that shed and it doesn't have a permit and it's not showing on the survey in that corner. MEMBER LEHNERT : The survey will show that it doesn't need it if it complies. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but it should be on it that's all (inaudible) it's benign but it should be there. Let's see now so now we're looking at when you build the house addition you're proposing to remove that far the garage in the back and turn that into just a roofed over patio? KAREN HOEG : A roofed over patio for outdoor dining. The footprint is not changing, the walls will just come down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause you're adding an attached garage on your addition so okay. You got a 33.7 foot front yard setback which is basically the same as what you've got now on your house. KAREN HOEG :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In fact most of the addition is going to be set back farther than that, it will be conforming. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting KAREN HOEG : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then the rear yard what is the other one? KAREN HOEG : The rear yard is similar to it's in line with the existing house which was probably built back in the sixties, seventies. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All of the addition is conforming on the rear yard. KAREN HOEG : I believe it's 28.9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the existing house. KAREN HOEG : Right so it's going to be in line with the existing house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's showing setback much farther from the rear yard than the existing house. So I think what you're adding is other than for a 15.8 foot section of.the in the front yard of the proposed addition MEMBER LEHNERT : Oh I know what's happening, once they merge the lot the rear yard becomes non-conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right. These are technical things. So the variances are not substantial at all, I mean you're actually most of your additions are ,going to have pretty conforming they will have conforming setbacks. MEMBER LEHNERT : The variances are minor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At least we get it now. Thank you for walking us through it. KAREN HOEG : A little complicated but yes as we said they designed the house it just needed a little bit more space you know the existing house is under a thousand square feet, they're adding an additional.maybe fifteen hundred between the garage a mudroom, an additional bedroom as opposed to creating this as a separate lot adding density, putting a new house there. This is just to make the house more functional. The house right now the laundry room is in the basement;you have to go outside to get there this will actually help with the'flow of the house. MEMBER LEHNERT :This entire application is a big technicality. KAREN HOEG : Correct, there's no hardship to the town it really is a benefit to clean up all of these properties. There's no environmental impacts, there's no increased density May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's very little land disturbance either because basically it's all treed it's open, it's flat (inaudible)foundation. KAREN HOEG : Yes MEMBER LEHNERT : Merging two instead of separating them and selling one off. MEMBER DANTES : It's complicated gymnastics but it's really CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a complicated application with a good outcome let's put it that way for everybody. Okay I think we all get it right? Okay, anybody on Zoom? Anybody in the audience who wants to address the Board? Anything else from the Board. Okay I'm going to make a motion to close both of these applications reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Our next meeting will be in two weeks and it's very likely we will. have a draft decision to vote on, on both of these at that time that will be the earliest we can do it. If not it will be at our next meeting two weeks after that which will be in June but that's it's likely that we can manage to get this written for you in two weeks. You get a copy in the mail but you can also listen in, I mean it's on Zoom or you can come to the Annex we start at 5 o'clock two weeks from today. Either way it's up to you but you will get a decision and you can also call the office and ask what happened whatever works for you is fine. Motion to recess for lunch. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye i May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to resume the hearings. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All if favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING #7770—NICHOLAS ALIANO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Nicholas Aliano #7770. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280- 124 and the Building Inspector's January 17, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the minimum code required 100 feet from the top' of the bluff, 2) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 3705 Duck Pond Rd. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Cutchogue. Let me enter into the record that Member Dantes has recused himself from this application. Let me just quickly look at the specific variance request is for a single family dwelling witha 59.5 foot bluff setback where the code requires a minimum of 100 feet and a front yard setback of 26 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 feet. CHARLES CUDDY : Good afternoon, Charles Cuddy I have an office at 445 Griffing Ave. Riverhead, New York. I have with me today Mr. Aliano, Mr. Rubenstein who is the house designer, I have Doug Adams who is a member or Young Associates also Charles Sultan who is May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting the builder. We're here to review what is essentially a residential building lot and what I'd like to do is to give you some documents that may help us with the review. I have the certified copy of the deed from 1972 when the Aliano's got the property. I also have copies of the map which I think is important because you may want to look at the map as we discuss some of the lots next to this lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Is that the tax map that you're referring to or the filed map, subdivision map? CHARLES CUDDY : We're here to review the application to have our house at 59.7, this is as far as we can get from the top of the bluff we can't go any further. Also as the Chairperson indicated we have a front yard setback of 26 feet. I don't think that that's significant because the neighbor on lot 4 right next to us has 15 feet and just down the street four hundred feet away is the Sack application and that person has a 25 foot setback. So I think the setback is in accordance with what's previously been done in this neighborhood. We submit that with the passage of time and also maybe with an examination of the earlier decision and your subsequent decisions that there should be a different result than there was in 2006. Just for your records and I'll hand it up in a minute, we have a D.E.C. letter or no jurisdiction which was also true in the prior application and as you know the Town Trustees had agreed at that point also to approve the application for building at this site. So I've given you the subdivision map so that we can at least look at what some of the neighbors have as far as the bluff setback. The neighbor on lot number one (inaudible) on lot number two had setbacks of 50 feet then 65 feet but the deck on lot number two is 53 feet back. I'll just give you copies of those so you can at least have them.in the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Mr. Cuddy did they receive variance relief for those setbacks or they were Pre C.O.'s? CHARLES CUDDY : Those setbacks as we will show were in '79 and '77 before the '89 (inaudible). If I may I'll just give you these. The reason I give you those two are because those setbacks have endured with the passage of time. They've had setbacks, they've had bulkheading on each of the lots, they have foliage, vegetation and each of those lots are relatively in good shape today. In 2015 this Board made a decision in the application of Steven, David and(Stephana Sack, Sack I guess is a better way of saying it. When you did that application they were 50 feet back from the top of the bluff and particularly important I think it's what the Board did it said that you can do two things to make sure the bluff is stable. You can at the toe of the bluff you can put bulkheading which is what our client proposes to do and along the bluff you can have vegetation. So if you do both things, if you put something at the bottom whether it's (inaudible) that is stone, whether you bulkhead you can protect the May 4,2023 Regular Meeting bottom and if you do vegetation you can protect the top. I think it's important in that decision of course you gave them a house that's just 50 feet back versus further back than that but I'll also give you that so you can have that in the,record. Again I think the Sack decision makes it very clear that bluff stability is achieved by a bulkhead at the bottom and vegetation the rest of the way and that's exactly what we propose. In fact what we propose to do more than that because when you do construction we will have silt fences, we will do whatever is required to ensure that the bluff remains stable. I want to talk a little bit about the earlier decision that you made cause in that decision you talk about impervability as a problem and the impervability that's talked about has to do with putting a structure but the structure that we're putting there is less than three percent of the entire site. So I think when you look at it closely three percent-structure on an entire site is not going to cause any real problem and I think a little bit later Mr. Adams will not only confirm that but state that that's absolutely true. I would also like to have you look at if you would at some of the decisions that you've made about inconsistency with the LWRP, the Local Waterfront Plan. By the way I note that we have gotten an inconsistent statement from the Local Waterfront but we object to that statement for two reasons, one in itself it's actually incorrect. It's remarkable to me that the Coordinator used Google to. determine where our.area was beyond a slope of twenty feet. Secondly there was nothing in our application to the Zoning Board from the Building Department that said this was also a problem. So somehow it either wasn't noted or it's not a problem. In any event it's our intention to make sure that we have no problem with the slopes to go the Storm Water Manager Officer who is an Engineer and tell us yes we do or no we don't. So we're going to do that, I just haven't been able to make an appointment with him but I will and very shortly. Getting to the next phase of,this I would like to talk to you about some of the inconsistent LWRP situation. I have some additional cases for you and what those cases are showing essentially is that when you have inconsistency you make them consistent by mitigating. Mitigation is often the things we're talking about and that is to have some vegetation on the bluff, to do something that prevents (inaudible) and things from flowing when you have construction, to use light construction equipment. I have those decisions and I'll give those to you also. The first decision is Benacourt decision which was in 2010, there's another decision Pant View which was in 2022 and the third decision Ben Ami which was in 2023. In the first one it was consistent but to make it consistent you mitigate it. In the next two you made them inconsistent to consistent by again requiring mitigation. So I'll hand those up so you can have them as part of the record. So our position in front of this Board indicates that by doing something to the bluff as opposed to doing nothing to preserve the bluff. If you look at the bluff today, erosion has been very small in the last seventeen to twenty years and I think that's been_noted previously but in our situation we're saying to you that if you do nothing at all the bluff eventually will erode but if you do something what I May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting think your decisions tell us is that's how you preserve the bluff. So what we're proposing to put a house not that far back compared to everybody else CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just making sure that we have everything. CHARLES CUDDY : I would like Mr. Adams who is an Engineer and a Geologist both licensed Geologist and licensed Engineer to speak. Before he speaks the reason I consulted Mr. Adams and his firm Young Associates is I've been doing this forty years and which I guess makes me a little bit older than I should be but in any event from my perspective Young Associates is probably the most knowledgeable and the most experienced people to do subdivisions, site plans, surveys on the Northfork and I think they've done more than anyone else in that particular area. So I think they're particularly equipped to talk about a site like this and whether it can built upon and how it can be built. So I'd like Mr. Adams to say a few words. DOUG ADAMS Good afternoon Doug Adams, professional Engineer and Geologist with Young Associates office at 400 Ostrander Ave. in Riverhead. I've only been doing this for about thirty six years so I don't feel too bad Charles. Just a couple points I think Charles was going to if he hasn't already submitted a constructability assessment that we did for the property an engineering report, it's just a page and a half basically. Also an affidavit from my partner regarding the Health Department issues that come along with the property and I'd like to bring these up if that's okay. I'll just touch on a few things so you don't have to necessarily read it at this particular moment. As far as the subdivision goes on this lot, this is a bit unique in that it is on the bluff and also on the gulley of Duck Pond Rd. or that outwash from the basically a glacial outwash gulley. All of the properties in this subdivision is very stable with the exception of our lot and that's basically because it's the only one that's not developed yet. Bluff protection on all the other lots has all but stopped erosion as far as we can tell by only there's been very little erosion in the last you know couple of dozen years. So it's working and if you just simply look at Google Earth or something like that you can see that they're very well vegetated and again the only problem area is really at the bluff side of this property. Again just touching on the few parts of the report, development will probably help stability of the bluff in a lot of ways. One would be that Charles talked about impermeable surfaces, someone had mentioned before we say impervious surfaces today and it would be required that the house footprint and any other impermeable surfaces be just through your storm water control plan that's required with a building permit application would require that that water is handled somewhat to the limits of what a storm water pollution plan or (inaudible) would require. So effectively that footprint of the impervious areas would be taken out of the equation of what is currently contributing to any runoff that's heading towards the gulley or the bluff face. So again that tributary (inaudible) basically being reduced because we're going to handle that to put it right into the ground. I think Charles also talked May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting about this three percent coverage, that was basically to address that so the impervious surface although it's three percent, any percent it doesn't really matter in, fact the more percent probably the better in terms of how much water would be controlled rather than not controlled. So at the end of the day you have more control of what (inaudible) factors could contribute to the bluff or the gulley. The bluff face is only effected these days by headword erosion that's basically what the definition of a bluff is anyway. So it's eaten away and the top just keeps failing down and it keeps moving you know being eaten up basically by the Sound. I just want to read the summary paragraph which is very small just in closing, I just want to say based on our assessment we find no valid rational for not allowing a residential home to be constructed on this property. If implemented correctly there will be no adverse impacts to the surrounding properties but rather a benefit contributing to the stability of the land forms in the immediate area. We further reiterate our recommendation that the bluff area I say that cause I mentioned it earlier that any construction here would have to include a discernable effort to stabilize the bluff face because that bluff will keep on moving landward without any manmade structure at the bottom of it and stabilization of the bluff face itself. So we would certainly recommend that appropriate stabilization take place in the development through the relevant permitting agency processes. Our opinion is further based on the fact that the stable portions of the subdivision are the direct result of the development of those other lots utilizing the existing slopes to their advantage and minimizing the amount of disturbance necessary to construct and improve the residential homes. One other point I'd like to make about steep slopes is that if you look at any house that has a walk out basement or a walkout level or different levels in the front or the back that slope going down the side of the house is at about exactly twenty percent. When that twenty percent number is thrown around a lot it's not necessarily a detriment in fact it's utilized a lot it's utilized on properties that aren't flat to give them that appearance or to give them that feature where a twenty percent slope might be generated. The best thing to do is to work with the slope put some retaining walls using the foundation walls of the structure as retaining walls to minimize your reach away from the structure and chase those grades away to make it something that it isn't which is not flat it's sloped. Obviously I'm available for any direct questions that you might have. CHARLES CUDDY : Just a little bit more if we may. Mr. Wolfert is an Engineer too who submitted an affidavit (inaudible) that the septic system would drain down not out which is very important and he's done that for many, many years probably has more applications to the Health Department than other engineers. I'd like to offer to you one other thing, I have some photos of the property that's just to the east of us that's the Electrical Contractor's site and also as a at the end of it the house that's on the bluff it's been on the bluff for a long time and I think that the significance of these photos show effectively that at this site you can actually have a bluff with vegetation (inaudible) or stone at the bottom without any problem. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting I'll hand up the Electrical Workers photo which shows that's right on the beach but is protected by enormous rocks. These sites are immediate to the east of us and of course to the west of us is all of the existing homes that are in the Vista Bluff map that you have. I think at this point I also would like to say to you that in the event that this Board were to deny the application then the applicant (inaudible) applicant would be deprived of the use of,his land. That becomes very significant because today that land is very valuable. I have two appraisals I had hoped that Andrew Stype from Mattituck would be here but he had an emergency so he could not be here but he's available if the Board wants to talk to him. I have his appraisal and I have an appraisal from Tom (inaudible) from Greenport so these are both Southold people that are familiar with 'the site, they both came up with an appraisal a million four hundred thousand and we don't have use of the land essentially we have zero as opposed to having a viable lot. I'll give you those too, I have one of each. In closing I would like to say that I believe under the circumstances here and based upon your decisions and based upon the passage of time not only is this appropriate but it meets the standards up to sixty seven of the Town Law. It doesn't produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood and many times you've noted that where there are residences it's not a problem because it's a residential neighborhood so adding one more residence even though Mr. Callas our next door neighbor would not like us to have adding one residence does not affect the neighborhood. By the way I think it would help the neighbors next door because it would lock in his bulkheading with our bulkheading, it will protect that whole area. I also think that there's really no alternative we went as far back as we can possibly go. As far as an environmental impact I think that we're positively doing something to the environment as opposed to negatively. If you leave it alone I think the answer is from Mr. Adams and others that neglect essentially will ruin this site. While it's substantial it's not any more substantial than anybody else's bluff setback. (inaudible) Mr. Sack is just four hundred feet down the street. This lot was created in 1972 but I think it's before much of the other provisions that we're talking about. In any event I believe that we meet the seven requirements and I would ask this Board to.approve the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your presentation. Should be get comments from others before we speak, do you want to ask questions anybody? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have one question I'd like to ask the Engineer Mr. Adams I believe was his name. The topographical survey that was provided with the application, who determines where the bluff is, where there's a mark where it says top of bluff and it follows the shoreline, who makes the determination of that location? DOUG ADAMS : We have a field crew that's under the direction of our surveyor and they've been doing this for a long time and basically we take the what's the obvious top of bluff which 4,31 May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting is in the field it's usually obvious it's a graphic abrupt change in direction from what the upper land area is before it starts its decent towards the beach. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How do you reconcile that with a corner parcel such as this? DOUG ADAMS : How do you reconcile it? I don't understand. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I'm looking at the elevation, it's showing the top of the bluff at approximately 62 feet and the 62 feet arcs and actually there's what would be the front of the proposed house the covered patio but you're showing the delineation of the top of the bluff as descending down to the roadway. I'm not understanding because there's a hollow a natural grade where the old Santorini Hotel or Motel is which is now the Local Union 3 or something to that effect but that's a whole like natural hollow and I'm not understanding like the bluff sort of stops at the subject parcel and then heads to according to what I'm reading here from the elevations it sort of heads south not east. DOUG ADAMS : Okay so the top of bluff line shown on the map it descends down to the end of Duck Pond Rd. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes DOUG ADAMS : that's the top of bluff and it does it dissipates and goes away at Duck Pond Rd. at the end of Duck Pond Rd. there is no bluff. The slope that you see along Duck Pond Rd. is the result of a gulley not (inaudible) erosion from the Sound. So if you step back and look at this topography from a higher altitude which I 'don't have in front of me, Duck Pond Rd. was built down a ravine up from the southwest and came down to the beach in that location and that road was probably put there because that ravine was there cause it was the easiest way to get down. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it's a natural ravine and I was calling it a hollow. DOUG ADAMS : Right so.the top of bluff though is defines the limit the landward limit of the bluff as it comes away from the Sound so it doesn't turn and continue to go up the ravine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is sometimes referred to as a landward bluff, it's not on the water but if the slopes are steep enough we see that at Captain Kidd's Estate and so on in various neighborhoods where there's literally a very big sheer with substantial slopes that sometimes referred to as landward bluff but it's substantially different than a sound bluff. DOUG ADAMS : Because of the erosion for a ravine is different than the cause of erosion of a bluff. A bluff is a result of headward erosion and eating away at the bottom from wave action or from storm action. On a ravine it's basically just like a river. If you look at something like 441 May 4,2023 Regular Meeting the Grand Canyon obviously those are very steep slopes but it's not a bluff it's a gulley or a ravine there's a lot of different geological definitions for it. I don't happen to agree with a what the other bluff that I know some people call it but it's certainly a steep slope but it's not subject to the same type of erosion. In fact even on this lot there has been no erosion even though it's never been developed like the other lots. Just because there's,been no erosion at the toe there's MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are you saying there's no erosion are you saying on the Sound side or the roadside? DOUG ADAMS : On the roadside. So that bluff line MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's exposed I mean I don't know how other Members on the Board what they perceive but during site inspection you could see there was erosion. DOUG ADAMS : On this bluff face on the ravine side? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely DOUG ADAMS : On the ravine side? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What you're calling the ravine side on Duck Pond Rd. I'm even looking at a Google Earth aerial and you can see there's exposed sand much like you have on the Sound side. DOUG ADAMS : I'd like to see that photograph. I was there yesterday and I didn't see any it's heavily vegetated. There may be some riveting from concentrating water coming out of that area but it's not doing anything near what's happening on the bluff. The bluff is completely exposed with no vegetation. In any event this is not considered a bluff this is considered a gulley face and it's not you know the top of that if there was a top of ravine if you will that came parallel to Duck Pond that hasn't moved whereas the bluff top of bluff does move. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea very clearly. DOUG ADAMS : It clearly does certainly once you get east of the bulkheading that's on the rest of the subdivision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In order to build a structure on this property you obviously are going at the flattest section that exists, I have two questions. Would it be necessary to use railroad ties or other sort of terracing along that Duck Pond frontage? DOUG ADAMS : I think to build a house.you wouldn't need to do anything, you could just have that part of the foundation of the house exposed if the finished floor of the house for 451 May 4,2023 Regular Meeting example is higher than what the grade is there. If you look at the rest of the houses on Duck Pond Rd. all of them have you know some sort of terracing or.retaining walls and exposure of their foundation walls to have multi-level you know drive in the basement or walk out of the first floor on the other side every single one of them. That's just them using that topography to their advantage in fact some. of the house still have as their front yards slopes well in excess of twenty percent and their mowing so clearly a twenty percent slope can exist you just need to work with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What if any plans are there for the partial foundation that was abandoned after a Stop Work Order and a denial was issued? DOUG ADAMS : I think that maybe the part that where the house is going would obviously be worked and removed but the part that heads seaward certainly we can leave that in place and just cover it up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) land disturbance that way. DOUG ADAMS : It could be taken out safely as well I believe but it doesn't serve any purpose if it's buried there except possibly help I suppose. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anybody have any questions at this point?Anybody else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One more of Mr. Adams while he's still at the podium. So you had said or Mr. Cuddy even had said that there are no other lots vacant lots, there's actually one lot. DOUG ADAMS : There is one lot there's two vacant lots total yea. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right the subject property and one on the other side to the west of the existing neighbor. DOUG ADAMS : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Again I didn't walk the beach that far I'm familiar with the beach but I did not during our site inspection go forward but this from looking as we're speaking at Google Earth you can see it's washed out at the intersection whoever the neighbor to the west is right at their lot line to the vacant lot. So you can even see in the Google Earth imaging that there is bulkeading it's substantially washed out. DOUG ADAMS Yea I'm not sure what the situation is there in terms of whether the maintenance of the bulkhead is being kept up or not. I believe that lot also has some activity up'top and I'm not sure what it is that could be contributing to that. May 4,2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The developed lot or the vacant lot? DOUG ADAMS :The vacant lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So on the subdivision map number three is the one that's vacant but the wash out is right between four and three visible on Google Earth. DOUG ADAMS : I remember looking at aerial photography as well and noticing that there was some activity at the top of that bluff right at the top of the bluff which could be contributing to you know material erosion coming down that and either overtopping the bluff or again the bluff might the bulkhead might not be being maintained at this current time properly. It could have a hole in the bluff or something or a board broken. Sometimes in these Nor'easters you have things like telephone poles or something floating out in the water and they get tossed into a bluff and they can literally punch holes right in the sheathing so there could be a piece of sheathing that (inaudible) material through it. I have not gone down to take a look at that. In general if you look at that aerial photograph I'm sure you'll see that the top of bluff is basically in the same location as the lots next door to it largely due to the fact that there's a toe hardening structure along those lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This may be a question actually for Charles or the architect but this is a three bedroom two story two and a half bath dwelling that's being proposed? I'm wondering what the square footage is. CHARLES CUDDY : (inaudible) 905 sq. ft. as the base so it would be an 1,800 sq. ft. house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay what is the status with Trustees approval have you applied to them yet? CHARLES CUDDY : We have not applied to them yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you know of course it's going to have to happen. Alright, I don't have any further questions at this time, let me see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address the application. Anybody on Zoom Liz? Okay if there's no questions from anyone else and anymore questions from the Board do you have anything else you want to say? CHARLES CUDDY : I think I said everything, I don't know if I gave up the D.E.C. letter and if I didn't I'll get it (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.Alright I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? 471 May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7772—CHRIS CAUFIELD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Chris Caufield #7772. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 28, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and construct a single family dwelling 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet located at 966 Youngs Rd. in Orient. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good afternoon Board thank you for having me. Maybe just before I start I do have (inaudible). So as mentioned this being considered a demolition/reconstruction. The house is existing a 1910 home, it's on a right of way street off of Youngs at the very end of the road so there really isn't a lot of neighbors around there. There's one neighbor on the right property line so it's not on the property line that we're asking the relief on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's look at what that relief is, you're looking at the side yard setback of 14.4 feet where the code requires a minimum of 20 feet. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. On that side there's basically just a farm field no residence. The code does call this a reconstruction but we're not necessarily demo'ing the whole building we are going to be saving basically (inaudible) the footprint that's there and the addition that we're adding that's creating the 14.4 foot is in line with the existing building. The building is just angled a bit so the current setback is 15.6 and the new setback would be 14.4 with that extension that is in line with the existing building. If there's any questions I can answer them. 481 May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It really is not visible to any other properties, there's,just some accessory structures that looks like agricultural property on the other side of the fence. The rear yard is substantially wooded. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The other setbacks were (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's all predating zoning anyway. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Exactly and they really want to preserve that structure. The clients are really into the historic aspect of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know we've all been out there to the property. MEMBER ACAMPORA :There's some nice rocks on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually this is very straightforward, very simple. You're looking at creating a 262 sq.ft. addition for a second story? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN.:The house is now a two story anyway. r ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea it's like a one and a half but they want to fix the second floor so that it's actually CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No more from me, anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, Nick? - MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nothing 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 PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye 491 May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7773—REGINA CALCATERRA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Regina Calcaterra #7773. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280- 124 and the Building Inspector's November 29, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish and construct a new accessory garage and legalize an "as built" deck addition to the single family dwelling at 1) accessory garage is located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) deck addition is located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 7630 Main Bayview Rd. in Southold. TODD CIARIAVINO : Hi my name is Todd Ciariavino I'm the co-owner. We're asking to remove demolish the garage and slide it over to a 20 foot setback. Unfortunately this property has three front yards. When we purchased the house we were told we could two separate lots we had to merge it into one lot in order to get (inaudible) which created a greater setback and by past variances that were issued on for the pool and the deck on two separate occasions the Zoning Board has in the past that's the area between the house and Main Bayview functions in reality as a front yard and the variance permitting construction of a pool in what is technically another front yard is not substantial. We are asking we're not increasing the size of the garage we're moving over, we are eliminating since the lots were merged we no longer have 1045 Koke Rd. as an entranceway we would lose that by the merger. Our garage with the door facing would be pointing towards our driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It faces Main Bayview TODD CIARIAVINO : Where our front door faces Main Bayview and with the Building Department code is a 50 foot setback (inaudible) rear yard since there's a pool already there now (inaudible) pre-existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it functions as what we would call your architectural rear yard no matter how they define it. TODD CIARIAVINO : It's noted here in the second variance. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The deck is about the same with the house. TODD CIARIAVINO : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's not an increase in setbacks. Let's see if the Board has any questions, anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on Zoom?Anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. I'll have a decision for you in two weeks. 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. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7778—DOMELUCA, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Domeluca, LLC #7778. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 19, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 14909 Main Rd. (adj. to Dam Pond) in East Marion. State your name for the record please. STEVE AFFELT : Hi my name is Steven Affelt representing Domeluca, LLC, I'm the architect for the project. Our proposed project is to reconstruct the existing swimming pool and build an underground filter room vault, a side yard. The main residence on this lot,is up against the 100 foot setback from the bluff. The side yard is really the only affective spot to have a pool. The pool has been previously approved by the Zoning Board for a smaller size. I think it was in 2017 don't quote me on that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was February 27th well that was a de minimus. It was actually July 24, 2014 for the variance and then you asked for a de minimus to just move it a little more southerly which was granted. STEVE AFFELT : This new one is a longer pool 25 meters or 82 feet a more,competitive I guess swimming practice. MEMBER DANTES : Wait the plan I have says 12 feet by 70 feet long. STEVE AFFELT : That's the existing pool. MEMBER DANTES : Oh okay so where's the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's going to go to 12 feet by 82? STEVE AFFELT : Correct further south. MEMBER DANTES : Is there a way to get the pool equipment (inaudible) setback? STEVE AFFELT : That pool equipment that you see there is going to be removed and relocated between the pool and the house in an underground vault. So we're trying to correct that as well as get our (inaudible). The underground vault obviously won't be seen but it'll still be on the side yard. That's the generic abbreviated project. We already have our Trustees approval for everything we've proposed and if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're basically just keeping it in the same place and making it longer and reconstructing. Will it still be elevated? Z May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting STEVE AFFELT : The exact same elevation as it is now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And changing the fencing, I'm presuming getting rid of all the grass? STEVE AFFELT : I'm not sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I had to put a hard hat on to get in, there by the way once we finally got the code. STEVE AFFELT : Yes I apologize for not sending the code the first time around, I hope that everything worked out well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well it certainly needs a little bit of a face lift that's for sure. I don't have any questions, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't have any questions. J MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just one, does the underground vault need any sort of permitting or anything, is it considered an improvement? We've never had that I'm aware CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know. STEVE AFFELT : Our initial Building Department denial also included the vault as part of the denial also in the side yard so I assume that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was just for the location? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was.thinking for the location cause I mean it's kind of an improvement but it's not. I mean it is but MEMBER DANTES : What other plans do you, guys have? Mine one that says zoning analysis Gibbons Pools it looks like it says 70 feet on here, the survey I have says 70 feet so which is the architectural plan that says the 82 feet? Is there a Sheet number on there or STEVE AFFELT : Do you have the one that says PL101? MEMBER DANTES : PL101 (inaudible). Yes I see it now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The equipment is moving over. MEMBER DANTES : Mine says 12 by 70, then 82 feet is this but it says 12 by 70. Inside of the pool it says 12 by 70 in-ground pool and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's existing. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting STEVE AFFELT :' I am working off of the surveyors plan because to translate all that information into a new CAD plan is actually (inaudible) so I just stuck with the original. So 12 by 70 is the existing pool and the 12 by 82 is notation ally on the side. MEMBER DANTES : Yea if you can just give us aversion where you white out that 12 by 70. 1 mean you're an architect if you want to change it by hand. STEVE AFFELT : It doesn't matter to me, I don't mind submitting another one for the record before your Special Meeting. MEMBER DANTES : In the other notation (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry Mr. Affelt, you had said that your Notice of Disapproval originally included the underground vault? STEVE AFFELT : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My Notice of Disapproval didn't illustrate that. What was the change or why did the Building Department remove that? MEMBER LEHNERT : We're working with one dated January 19tH STEVE AFFELT : So am I yea. I'm sorry I thought it said CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't make mention of the underground vault but our.primary concern when we look at pool equipment is sound deadening enclosures. I would think the earth would be sound deadening. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's where I'm just wondering I've never seen a vault. I mean this is larger than we've discussed an enclosure which we normally condition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think it's an issue, I really don't. If we grant the side yard location we previously granted this is way set back from the property line MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is between the pool and the house anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : this is way set back from the property line to a conforming distance. No I don't think the Building Department is going to have a problem with that at all. Is there anything else from the Board? What about the fencing around the pool, the new pool what are you going to put? May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting STEVE AFFELT : I believe we're going to be sticking with style that was there in the past, it was an ornate chain link but it was more of an (inaudible) pattern not diamond pattern and it had I think it was top rail bottom rail. It conformed to regular code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I saw that I thought it looked like chicken wire with a top and bottom rail STEVE AFFELT : We won't be winding up with chicken wire. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay you're proposing more of a chain link alright. I thought that made sense, why would you invest that kind of money in a new pool and put chicken wire over there. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address,the application? Is there- anybody hereanybody on Zoom? Why don't I just say we will close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended length on the swimming pool proposed at 82 feet not 70. Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie are you saying an amended site plan or just an amendment to (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No just a correction to the dimensions on the plans we got which call it out at the existing size rather than the proposed. It's better to stamp that when we send it to the Building Department. May 4,2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7779—THOMAS C. BAUER and JENIFER COURTNEY-BAUER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas C. Bauer and Jenifer Courtney-Bauer #7779. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280- 124 and the Building Inspector's December 28, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" masonry patio attached to-an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 415 Goldin Ave. in Southold. So this is already built, we've been out state your name for the record please Mr. Lark. RICHARD LARK : Richard Lark, Main Rd. Cutchogue, New York. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. So we're looking at a rear yard setback of 10 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 and lot coverage of 24.8% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. This is for a 12.8 foot by 22.4 foot patio and it was built without a building permit apparently.Tell us what you'd like us to know about.the application. RICHARD LARK : I attached a Board of Appeals application in 1964 with a decision but the decision is so brief you don't really know what happened until you see the application. The denial of the Building Department and so on and so forth and it is relevant for you to consider as to what happened here. As the Chairman stated this is a permission to have a rebuilt "as built" patio to remain where it is. I think the application is really (inaudible) and so on and so forth cause it's non-conforming lot. Simply put the applicant is requesting that the Board to grant whatever necessary variances so the pool can remain in its present position. MEMBER DANTES : How close to the patio is it to being an at grade patio? MR. LARK : What's that? MEMBER DANTES : How close is the patio to being at grade? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's actually at grade on the end of it. MR. LARK : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One step down is practically at grade. MEMBER DANTES : What's the difference between this cause it looks like you can push a lawn mower onto it. MEMBER LEHNERT : No it steps up when you get by the road. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting MR. LARK : Right, the front lawn was built up gradually and there was a reason for that. It's a good question cause when I went to inspect it when I got involved in this matter what had happened was is the applicant had told the contractor he wanted the deck for the patio to be one step below the window the sliding glass door window that goes into the house. The reason forthat is because the snow blowing coming off the Sound would have a little bit of a buffer there. So that was the reason there's a step down there. Now what happened was he has a disabled niece who spends a lot of time in the summer with him and it was difficult for her to get the wheelchair there so they built up the front lawn from the road all the way out down Soundview Ave. all the way up with a very gradual and replanted the whole lawn as you see is pretty nice now and so that the wheelchair can have access to the deck and then really into the house for that accommodation for the niece. So when I got involved with it after the Building Inspector decided that he wasn't going to grant a building permit without a variance when I went and looked at it cause I was puzzled as the contractor was. The contractor still maintains that he built patios like this before and has never had to have a permit cause it's ground level. It's really not ground level because the code got changed where if you put steps on it on a house on either side he did this for (inaudible) to get to it rather than have a steep grade water runoff. He did a good job and to answer your question Eric, it was slightly above I say it's probably elevated about six inches, seven inches from what it was so it wasn't at the natural grade level that was there before okay it was built up a little bit.Then he put the steps in to make the facility so you didn't have to climb up a short hill. But anyway, the owner was totally unaware of this because as you can see from the application in the file there this is a substandard non-conforming lot drawn by the Board of Appeals never mind what the filed map in 1932 filed map said. In '64 they redesigned the whole thing because what had happened by background, it was a summer cottage community back in the thirties and people only stayed there during the summertime not in the winter there was nothing there just cottages. So what had happened.the one owner this guy named Avita ended up owning these three lots and these cottages were built with no consideration where the lot lines were. He went to sell it and of course the red light went on cause he had title insurance and then all of sudden he realized that like on this lot where you came out of the Bilco door and you were stepping on the neighbor's property it was right on the line. That was just one problem and they wanted to put a garage on this property it was proposed and so the Board of Appeals said go ahead change the lot lines, make it conform and it's odd because the Board actually granted him to change the filed map real property lines not zoning lines, real property lines and when I looked at it I said this can't be. So then I went back and it happened and they did the deeds accordingly. They didn't abandoned the filed map or anything like you're supposed to do.The title search companies went along and it's has been that way since '64 with various conveyances back and forth. This applicant (inaudible) father you have that they got a C.O. for the garage in the back and everything else but the interesting thing is in that hand up that I May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting just gave you which was the application for the Board of Appeals it showed what was really happening at the time and they talked about area and side yards and the Building Inspector and the Board of Appeals then determined that if you did it this way it would conform to the zoning never mind you (inaudible) which I haven't gotten over. Actually they were talking about side yards so from the rear of the house which I call the rear of the house if you would because we now have the zoning is more sophisticated around the corner so we have two front yards so we got that dilemma. So they had decided that the Soundview Ave. was going to be the front yard and that was pretty clear (inaudible) how they do it and they created that side yard to 10 feet and they had to move the property line to accommodate it and it became the side yard. The Building Inspector when I was confronted how do you want to handle this thing cause it was clear that we were over 4% with the lot coverage because I determined by definition it did require a building permit so there was no argument there. He said well I'm just going to designate it the rear yard but I said how do you explain all of this and he said I see your argument explain it to the Board of Appeals let them make the decision I think it's a rear yard. I said well then where's the front yard? He said yea that's a good question isn't it? So I said I'll apply you're going to deny it, I'll apply for it and we'll just see what happens with it because I said it's really a total mess and really needs to be kind of straightened out you know what I mean. In the contractors favor he did keep it 10 feet from what he determined also with the survey was the side yard okay, I give him credit for that but he did not do his research and he should have gotten the building permit and I think we probably could have resolved a lot of the problems at that time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He probably would have sent you to us anyway. MR. LARK : That could very well be because the Building Inspector says well I'm making it the rear yard. I said I thought when we had two front yards the owner can decide which is my front and which is my secondary front yard. So anyway that's what happened on that so I wanted to give you a little bit of the background. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I commend you for being able to figure it out. MR. LARK : When I finally went and got all of the records and I can say they're not complete surveys but that's what's in the actual file. I just took it well that's what they had so I'll go with what it is at least explain it and Mr. Bauer his father who owned it before him they kind of verified that's what it was he said yea I know it's probably my back yard but it's really the side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the principle street is Soundview then yes it's a side yard, if their house is facing Goldin so you know typically a rear yard is the opposite of your front May 4. 2023 Regular Meeting door and what complicates it even .more is you've got a little L-shaped lot here with this sort of tail here in the back where the MR. LARK : Which was all created by the Board of Appeals and the reason they did that was that the original filed map on the southerly portion ran through the neighbors garage on the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see MR. LARK : So they moved the line north in other words and said okay. Now it'll have a proper exposure with the side yards and rear yards. ,Okay so that gives you a bit of the torturous history here. I recognize in order for the Board to consider whether or not to allow the patio to remain it must consider the statutory factors or criteria but basically the bottom line is that when you look at this patio whether you walk as a pedestrian or you drive by with the car it does not cause any detriment to. the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood and therefore this is a mixed neighborhood of secondary homes and well with the pandemic it's more permanent homes there now I've noticed. I don't think that it interferes with the health and safety of the neighborhood in any way shape or form. That leads right into the first criteria to whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood by allowing this patio as built to remain. To evaluate this you have to evaluate the neighborhood and analyze it and originally like I said it was created in the 1930's and then it basically stayed that way right through probably WWII and then the summer homes became more year round type homes as opposed to cottages because of the beach area there on the Sound and so and so forth. Today it's a mix both full time and part time residences there. When you take everything into consideration I think this "as built" patio will have a zero effect in the neighborhood or the community and whether you're walking or driving like I say but it is a great benefit because not only was it well built if you stand on it or sit on it you have on a chair you have a marvelous view of the Sound and it does serve a functional purpose for this family when the niece comes which makes an easy access rather than try to have to schlep up the wheelchair up the steps you only have one to do. Now the next criteria that you have to consider were the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some other method in a word no, variance is the only answer.so unfortunately due to the unique as you pointed out in the configuration of the lot and .under the current zoning on it it's substandard in size and put it another way submitted extremely difficult to make any exterior development on this or improvement or otherwise on this property without obtaining a variance. The owner basically knew that and didn't understand his contractor saying no you don't need one this is just a patio but we now know differently and he suspected as such in the beginning he told me. Now whether the next one is the key one whether the area variance is substantial, this is an interesting requirement because to review this requirement of substantiality required in my opinion to view not only this patio but in the context of this May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting residential neighborhood to.determine whether or not to remain is a substantial to determine whether it would be adversely affect the neighborhood by letting it remain especially residential character of this neighborhood. There is no evidence to suggest the patio has any adverse effect on the neighborhood. As for the lot coverage the 287 sq. ft. patio does cause it to exceed the 20% at 4.8% which mathematically is not a substantial actual deviation. The rear yard side yard problem if it's deemed a side yard then there is no variation or the request for a variance it's a side yard and it does comply with the 10 feet which is the current standard on one side and on the other side it would be the side yard which is the subsequent front yard, I know it's a mess when you look at it from a zoning perspective. But if you do deem it a rear yard then it does exceed cause it's only 10 feet as opposed to the 35 foot requirement which is basically a 71% deviation. But if you consider it in the sense of not mathematically only but substantiality by designate it the rear yard mathematically yes but from a zoning perspective (inaudible) into the neighborhood surrounding properties in other words the totality of the surrounding circumstances there and with no evidence or claim that substantially has any impact on the community than it is not substantial. The next criteria is more or less repetitive whether or not the proposed variance would have an adverse effect or a physical impact, environmental or otherwise on the neighborhood by allowing it. I'm not aware of any claim or evidence that this patio which has been up there for about a year now or so and where it's located has any negative impact environmentally or physically concerning this neighborhood. The last one that you have to consider is the self-created, yes. The applicant owns the property and is responsible for his contractors mistake and that's why we're here with a permission so that we can apply for a building permit and a C.O. As far as the construction is concerned I did talk to the Building Department and they said yea once you get by the Board of Appeals I put the construction of it the engineers certified everything, went back (inaudible) what the contractor did and he said there's no problem that way he said that was done all according to (inaudible). The mistake of the contractor is not reason to deny the application for that reason alone and if it's allowed to remain in its present position then the real test is whether the strict application of the zoning ordinance which would be to remove and modify this patio will outweigh the damage to the applicant with the cost and everything else. So in summary on behalf of the applicant Thomas and Jenifer Bauer we're requesting the Board grant them this variance to allow for this patio to remain so we can apply for the building permit and then C.O. everything legalized. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the only house that would have anything to do with anything like that with this patio is actually set the one that's adjacent to it facing Soundview, that's set way, way in front of where this patio is, they're much, much closer to the road. There's also a picket fence up in place along what we could call either the rear property line or the side property line you share a property line so you don't even see it from Soundview and you 0 May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting know it's attractive it's functional and I don't really see any particular adverse impacts with it to stay the way it is. I mean you can't move other than demolishing the existing (inaudible) or demolishing the deck there's no way to change the lot coverage. The house is there, it's nicely done it's been upgraded so that's the way it is. Pat do you have any questions or MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, Nick, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : Do you have any idea when it was built the patio? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Like a year or so. MR. LARK : A year and half within the last two years for sure yea. I was thinking because when we applied for the permits and everything there's been delay so I would say within two years. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And there's no plans of adding an awning or pergola or MR. LARK : No, no, the way it is now the owner is very happy with it, it's so clean. Don't forget that suffers tremendous winds. He's not there all the time so he likes it the way it is nice and clean. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's probably a good idea to elevate it slightly you know below the patio doors because you do get a lot of(inaudible) MR. LARK : (Inaudible) to do it within the rules and regulations of the town put it one step below so we can wheel the wheelchair in the sliding glass door window but otherwise the snow would just bunch up all the time, it won't get a chance to blow away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I have nothing further, anybody on Zoom? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye May 4,2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7786—LIANE SCADUTO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The last application for this afternoon is for Liane Scaduto #7786. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 31, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a wood deck attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 7845 Skunk Lane in Cutchogue. DOUG MCGAHAN : Good afternoon, I'm Douglas McGahan I'm the agent and contractor for Ms. Scaduto. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know we've all been out thereto see it, we're looking at a side yard.an attached deck on a single family dwelling with a side yard setback at 9 feet where the code requires 15 feet minimum. We have a letter of support from a neighbor in our record here. We have a letter of concern from another neighbor who says that the site plan itself is incorrect, it's based on a 1975 survey. Did you get a copy of that? DOUG MCGAHAN :.I have that somewhat defamatory letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you want to make a comment about that? DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes, I'm not certain how they can be sure that it is our site plan that's incorrect if it is incorrect as opposed to their survey that is incorrect. I know that they don't make them like they used to and it's been quite a few years since this was done. Nothing has been brought up prior to this as far as accuracy. I don't know why even a property line issue would be a point because I set the deck back two feet from the existing structure which is too close to the property line just to avoid any instance like this and also to provide a place to possibly plant arborvitaes as a screening to the neighbors. This deck is actually going to enhance the looks of their house and I know the neighbors have also mentioned that their house needs improvement, can you please improve it your (inaudible) the value of our property. That's exactly what we're doing we're improving. MEMBER DANTES : Regardless I mean still it matches what's existing so if it's the wrong number I mean you're not changing the location. DOUG MCGAHAN : No we're not moving the house. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's based off the existing house. MEMBER DANTES : Exactly z May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My question is, how do you access this deck? There's no steps drawn in and it's right up against a masonry wall. DOUG MCGAHAN : We're going to (inaudible) that abandoned masonry steps which is going to enhance the appearance of the house. We're not going to make it accessible from the yard because it's off of her bedroom which she does not want access from the yard. We're going to replace the window that's there with a single door so she can just go out in the morning and have her coffee and relax on her deck in her own privacy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so the window is the one that's closest to the down spout that's the DOUG MCGAHAN : The only window on that space of the house CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's two, there's a little one and (inaudible) DOUG MCGAHAN : It would be the larger window. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's going to become a door. That makes a lot more sense cause that's not drawn on anything so I was like how the heck are they going to get to that thing. DOUG MCGAHAN : I didn't figure that was a point for the variance but that will be (inaudible) MEMBER ACAMPORA : That was basically an outdoor deck for a bedroom. DOUG MCGAHAN : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you need a variance for this setback and then you will have to get a building permit for both the deck and the window replacement for a door. DOUG MCGAHAN : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so there will be an access in and out just strictly from the bedroom. DOUG MCGAHAN : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need a railing on that deck? DOUG MCGAHAN : We will need a railing on the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You will have to have one. May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting DOUG MCGAHAN : It's going to mimic the deck on the other side of the house the same style deck, same railing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the other question, why do you need another deck when they're disconnected but I guess it's for DOUG MCGAHAN : She wants to have her own private area, she's going to have her very senior father living there and she wants to have her own place to have a bit of privacy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's not a lot coverage issue so DOUG MCGAHAN : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I don't have any more questions, anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nope CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well now the mystery is solved, we now understand how it's going to function. Anybody on Zoom? No hands and there's nobody in the audience so I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserved decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We'll have a decision in two weeks. Motion to actually to recess to the 5 o'clock hearing. MEMBER DANTES : Second 641 May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye May 4, 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 • 9�td6eik Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : May 15, 2023