Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB-05/10/2005-PH2SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING May 10, 2005 8:05 P.M. HEARING ON "A LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO THE SIZE, HEIGHT AND SETBACKS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS." Present: Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton Justice Louisa P. Evans Councilman John M. Romanelli Councilman Thomas H. Wickham Councilman Daniel C. Ross Councilman William H. Edwards Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville Town Attorney Patricia A. Finnegan COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on the 29th day of March 2005 a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Size, Height and Setbacks for Accessory Buildings" and NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the 10m day of May 2005 at 8:05 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. The proposed local law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Size, Height and Setbacks for Accessory Buildings" reads as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2005 A Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Size, Height and Setbacks for Accessory Buildings" BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as follows: I. Purpose- The purpose of this Local Law is to establish clear standards governing the maximum building height, size and setbacks for accessory structures, in order to further preserve the character of single-family neighborhoods and reduce confusion among applicants and town officials. These changes will reduce the impact of accessory buildings on adjoining residences. These changes shall apply to the Low- Density Residential (R-40) zoning district, as well as the R-80, R-120, R-200, R-400 and Agricultural-Conservation (A-C) zoning districts. II. Chapter 100 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows: § 100-33. Accessory buildings. May 10, 2005 2 Public Hearing-Size, Height & Setback for Accessory Structures In the Agricultural-Conservation District and Low-Density Residential R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts, accessory buildings and structures or other accessory uses shall be located in the required rear yard, subject to the following requirements: A. Such buildings shall not exceed ~:~*~- r~ Qx v.~ ....... ~ v: twenty-two (22) feet in height. B. Such buildings shall not exceed 660 square feet on lots containin~ up to 20,000 square feet, and shall not exceed 750 square feet on lots 20,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet. C.Setbacks. (1) On lots containing up to "-'~-"'...v...: +~',..wo~...~a (29,999) ten thousand (10,000) square feet, such buildings shall be set back no less than three (3) feet from any lot line. (2) On lots containin~ ten thousand (10,00% square feet, up to nineteen thousand nine- hundred and ninety-nine (19,999) square feet, such buildings shall be set back no less than tk~ee (3~ five (5) feet from any lot line. (-2-) (3) On lots containing ...... *~-- .... ~ ..... twenty thousand (20,000) square feet up to thirty-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine (39,999) square feet, such buildings shall be set back no less than c,,,~ r<x .... ~: ten (10) feet from any lot line. On lots containing .................. ; ....................... .;.~., .;.~ t20 ogre square feet forty thousand (40,000) square feet up to fifW-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine (59,999) square feet, such buildings shall be set back no less than ....~. ~ fifteen (15) feet from any lot line. (-3) (5) On lots containin~ sixty thousand (60,000) square feet up to seventy-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine (79,999) square feet, such buildings shall be set back no less than ten (!O) twenty (20) feet from any lot line. (4) (6) On lots containing in excess of seventy-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine (79,999) square feet, such buildings shall be set back no less than "~'~-"' r~m ....... ; ~ twenW five (25) feet from any lot line. III. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not effect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid. IV. Effective date This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by law. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Councilman Wickham. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: We do have notice that it has been published in the local newspaper, it has been on the Town Clerk's bulletin board out there and at the end we also have a comment that I read before from our Planning Board. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Let's make sure that is incorporated and that was in regard to the 18 to 20 foot height? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Mmmhmm. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Would anybody care to address the Board on this specific hearing? Yes, Ms. Debold. May 10, 2005 3 Public Hearing-Size, Height & Setback for Accessory Structures JULIE DEBOLD: Good evening and thank you for the chance to speak. Julie Debold, Long Island Farm Bureau. I have come with a memo regarding the proposed legislation from our executive director, Joseph Gergela. And it is, I will just cut right to it. "Long Island Farm Bureau is a membership association of over 7,200 farmers, fishermen, agribusinessmen and individuals interested in a rural quality of life. Regarding the amendments to the above referenced code, LIFB requests an explicit exemption be written within this legislation for agricultural structures that are part of a bona fide farm operation. This legislation appears to be aimed at non-farm, residential accessory structures. However, as Southold Town becomes more suburban and loses the once common knowledge of its agricultural history, the code as currently written is open to interpretation to mean any structure or building that in not a residence. As such, it casts a dragnet which catches up farm buildings necessary to a farm operation. The code as written applies to Agricultural-Conservation and Low-Density zoning districts where farming is the primary land use and may fall within the New York State certified Agricultural District. As an example of how the proposed legislation encompasses farm buildings necessary to a farm operation, a standard barns exceeds the proposed limitations as written in this code. LIFB does not believe it is the intention of the Board to unreasonably restrict farm operations in Southold Town. For this reason, LIFB requests an explicit exemption be written within this proposed legislation for agricultural structures that are part of a bona fide farm operation." Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. MS. DEBOLD: And I have the copy for each of you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: That would be great. Thank you. I will make sure they get distributed. I believe Ms. Oliva, you .... RUTH OLIVA: Ruth Oliva, again, Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We do support this legislation and feel it will help us tremendously in some of the accessory buildings that are being built sometimes a little bit too big and sometimes suspiciously adding on to illegal apartments. But I do want to say, you do have a typo here. In the agricultural and low density residential, in your second, right under Chapter 100, low density residential should read R-40 then R-80, then R120 and so forth and so on. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: I can address that. MS. OLIVA: Oh. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: And I know the Planning Board made that comment, too. R-40 is in 100-30 A 4 is R-40. That is the R-40 section, 100-30-Al. That says there under accessory buildings, accessory buildings shall be subject to the same requirements as 100-33 of the AC district. So as with the other parts of R-40, it refers over. So the amendment does apply to R-40 also. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Good catch, though. MS. OLIVA: Good. Anyway, we do support it. I am not going to go into length about it but it will really help us, I think, in setting some restrictions. Thank you. May 10, 2005 4 Public Hearing-Size, Height & Setback for Accessory Structures SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Are there other comments from the floor on this specific hearing? Yes, Ms. Norden. MELANIE NORDEN: Hi, Melanie Norden, Greenport. Just as a point of reference, what is the definition of these accessory buildings? SUPERVISOR HORTON: The definition of accessory buildings? MS. NORDEN: Right. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Actually, the Town Attorney will read that for you momentarily. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Accessory building or structure: a building or structure detached from a principal building, located on the same lot as and customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal building. MS. NORDEN: So do we have any definition that precludes residential habitation in the accessory structures that are currently being defined under this law? SUPERVISOR HORTON: I didn't understand that? MS. NORDEN: Is there anything in this proposed legislation or in any other definition that precludes or defines residential habitation in an accessory building? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Not within this code, no. MS. NORDEN: Okay, so can these buildings be occupied residentially? SUPERVISOR HORTON: No. For an accessory structure to be lived in... MS. NORDEN: Right. SUPERVISOR HORTON: ... I believe that, correct me ifI am wrong, but I believe that requires, if it is possible, it requires a special permit or exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Right. MS. NORDEN: So the intention is not essentially to create accessory buildings that will be lived in, residentially? SUPERVISOR HORTON: No. Actually it deals with the size of them. MS. NORDEN: Okay. The other thing that I am concerned about, actually, is why was, if in fact the purpose of the law as such is to reduce the impact of accessory buildings on surroundings areas or properties, why was the height changed from 18 to 22 feet? May 10, 2005 5 Public Hearing-Size, Height & Setback for Accessory Structures SUPERVISOR HORTON: Actually because, that is a very good question that we all asked. And the, that is not why it is a good question, though; that the Planning Board also asked as well and please feel free to explain it more articulately than I may be able to but I believe it is because the point at which it is measured is different. So the overall height as I understand it, allowable height, isn't different. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: We are now measuring to the ridge. MS. NORDEN: Okay. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Formerly it was an average measurement between the eaves and the ridge. MS. NORDEN: Right. Because I guess one of the things that people would then query is whether in fact this therefore makes all accessory buildings easily two stories in height, as opposed to one story. And if we are talking about buildings the function of which is primarily as additional work space, rather than living space, I really question why we need two story, 1,500 square feet or somewhat larger accessory buildings, smack dab against the properly lines of residential lots. In other words, I would really also like to recommend that you might consider taking a 10 foot setback on all accessory buildings, regardless of the lot size because in point of fact, the burden it seems to me should really be on the properly owner who wants to build the accessory building, rather than the neighbor who actually has to look at is. So in other words, in my neighborhood, there are a lot of very large now, because there is a lot of expensive homes being built, excessively large in my definition, accessory buildings smack dab on the lot line, which brings accessory buildings and their purposes much closer to my living space. So it would seem that if in fact, you are going to want to build an accessory building, it would be fairer to your neighbors if that building had a 10 foot setback, regardless of lot size, than if that building had a three foot or less setback to the properly line. Because it just makes all of that, what is going to go on in that accessory building a whole lot closer to my living space. And if you are now talking about two foot accessory buildings, or two story accessory buildings, with square footages of 1,500 square feet, i.e. the foot print is 660 or 750 times two, you are talking about a pretty large structure and then with windows and possibly even dormers, we are talking about something even bigger. So this is not, you know, some carpenters work space or some boat builder who is building a dinghy. This could really be quite a large structure and to have that right on the properly line, I think really creates a burden for the neighbor who actually didn't ask for the accessory building to begin with. So if you could consider more generous setbacks, given the fact that some of them probably would be, some people probably would ask for variances from the Board of Appeals as it is, I think that would be also helpful and if we really could consider making a very clear definition and perhaps every building that is built should have the CO that makes it very clear that residential living is not allowed. SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is... MS. NORDEN: In each building? SUPERVISOR HORTON: If a building has a CO, it, you know .... May 10, 2005 6 Public Hearing-Size, Height & Setback for Accessory Structures MS. NORDEN: But will that be clearly defined? It will say that no one can live in this building for one night, two weeks, three weeks, a summer, a season, a year or year around? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: A lot of definitions that come out, a lot of the definitions now that currently come out of the Zoning Board will be granted without habitable space allowed. It will say it right on the blueprints, it will say it on the building permit. MS. NORDEN: Right. So anybody that has a two story accessory building that is really quite attractive with lots of windows and doors and all sorts of other things, it will be clear that those will not be rentable structures? For residential habitation? COUNCILMAN ROSS: This law does not address the use of the structures, the use is set in the code and it doesn't affect that. MS. NORDEN: Okay. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Okay? The purpose is to make these structures smaller and the height that is set has, will do that if taken in conjunction with the other law that was presented tonight. Because the measuring point will be changed and consequently two story accessory structures will not be permitted. So that is the purpose of this law and that will be the affect of it, to eliminate the second story on accessory structures. MS. NORDEN: So it really will do that then, because the 22 foot height means then that you can't have a second story. COUNCILMAN ROSS: The 22 foot height in conjunction with the other suggested change means you can't have a second story, that is correct. MS. NORDEN: Well, that is good. Thank you. COUNCILMAN ROSS: You are welcome. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Are there other comments from the floor on this specific hearing? Yes, Mr. Strang. GARRETT STRANG: Thank you. Garrett Strang, Southold. Could Mr. Ross expound on that, I am not quite clear on the fact that you can't have a two story accessory structure if you are allowed a height limit of 22 feet with a flat roof. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Basically my understanding comes from various meetings with the Building Department and that read in conjunction with the other code, this will allow for some storage above the first floor but not permit a second story... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: But you bring up a flat roof... May 10, 2005 7 Public Hearing-Size, Height & Setback for Accessory Structures MR. STRANG: If you have a flat roof, you are going to have a second story and whether it is used for storage or not, it is still a second story and I am just, I don't recall .... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I think the law is silent on the question of stories. MR. STRANG: I believe it is. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The law is clear about the limit but it is silent on the number of stories. The purpose of it and we had many discussions back and forth, first of all, the size of the structure was predicated on the basis of what a two car garage would require with a little bit of excess for walking around and what not. The height limit was a reflection of the concern that there are quite a number of accessory structures which are much taller than this, which clearly are much more than what we normally think of as an accessory structure. The purpose of this was to bring it down. The purpose was not to restrict it to a particular number of stories. MR. STRANG: Thank you. So, if I understand correctly, you could in theory have a two story accessory structure? COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Flat roof. MR. STRANG: Well, even with a gable roof with a donner. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Yeah, I guess in the center... MR. STRANG: Because the accessory, the other aspect of the code that we spoke about at the previous hearing was the pyramid law. That does not apply to accessory structures. So there is no limitation on, that would kind of limit whether you could have a second story or not. I am not proposing that we invoke a pyramid law for accessory structures but I am just trying to clarify it in my mind. I did have some other points, if I may indulge the Board's attention. I would like to see if the Board would give consideration to the fact that accessory buildings be permitted in a side yard as well, provided that they meet the principal dwelling setback or principal building setbacks, especially on comer lots and waterfront lots, okay? So I think that is something that is worthy of some thought and consideration. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Say that again? MR. STRANG: Accessory structures, right now it is only pennitted in a rear yard, okay? I believe that it should be permitted in a side yard in corner lots and waterfront lots, with the proviso that it meets the principal dwelling setback, i.e. a minimum of 10-15-20, whatever the lot size requires, dictates. Are the restrictions for accessory structures, I don't see, again, I don't see any reference to how they apply to other residential districts that are not specifically outlined here or the other districts in the town, commercial business and the like. So I don't know if this, again, under consideration as it was under the other situation. I do take somewhat of a slight exception to the agricultural aspect of things in accessory buildings. I think agricultural accessory buildings, height, size and location, proximity to property lines, when abutting residential properties should have some restrictions, so that you don't have a monstrous barn sitting five feet, three feet, eight feet off a property line of someone's residential May 10, 2005 8 Public Hearing-Size, Height & Setback for Accessory Structures backyard. So I think there should be some consideration given there. You know, a little give and take on everybody's part. Again, we just talked about the two story situation so that is fine. And lastly, as far as the building size go, I am not sure that it is right to penalize people with lot sizes less than 60,000 square feet as to the size of the building they should put on it or they can put on it. I think, once again, the size of the accessory structure should be proportionate to the yard area that it is situated in. for example, if it is situated in a rear yard and there is, when you looked at the lot and you defined this is your rear yard, you have 5,000 square feet of rear yard, a percentage of that rear yard could be covered with an accessory structure, which would automatically dictate its size relative to the size of the properly; as opposed to hitting a 60,000 square foot and down penalization for those lots. So, thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Strang. Are there other comments on this hearing? Mr. Baiz. And then I will move to you Ms. Gould and then Mr. Dinizio. CHRIS BAIZ: Good night, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, since it is getting late. My name is Chris Baiz of Southold. I just want to understand a couple of things about this. As defined right now, accessory buildings are all agricultural buildings a subset of accessory buildings? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Not a subset, no. Agricultural buildings are agricultural buildings. MR. BAIZ: Building or buildings? They are not a subset. Are they mutually exclusive? Under this law, as written? UNIDENTIFIED: Ag structures are principal buildings, they are not affected by this at all. MR. BAIZ: Period? UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah, period. Not even this late at night. MR. BAIZ: We have legal opinion to that fact? So that it is on the record, ladies and gentlemen? That agricultural buildings are principal buildings? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Baiz .... MR. BAIZ: Well, I just want to .... SUPERVISOR HORTON: Well, I am trying to answer your question. The building inspector has the authority to make that determination and that is who is charged under state law to actually say so and that is... MR. BAIZ: Okay, so are you then telling me if the building inspector says no, the agricultural building is not a principal building and so therefore you fall under this law? SUPERVISOR HORTON: No, if it is an agricultural building used in the agricultural operation, then it is an agricultural building. If it is a building used in an agricultural operation, it is an agricultural building and as Mr. Verily stated, a principal structure. May 10, 2005 9 Public Hearing-Size, Height & Setback for Accessory Structures MR. BAIZ: And not an accessory structure under this law? SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is correct. MR. BAIZ: Okay. COUNCILMAN ROSS: I would also note, Mr. Baiz, this doesn't affect any property in excess of two acres. MR. BAIZ: Okay. Now, in contrast to an example that was just given about restricting agricultural buildings near residential or next to residential parcels. You know, it is always nice to sort of give the halcyon overview of 'well, we won't let that happen' but in reality in one situation that I am involved in right now, within my farm I have a one acre lot, all subdivided out, with a small residential cottage on it and on that one acre lot it appears that that's probably really the only good site on my entire farm to put a barn that I need for storing my agricultural equipment and supplies. And so again, it will probably take up part of the side yard on this 40,000 square foot lot and part of the rear yard for you know, approximately a 3,200 square foot building. You know, something 40 by 80, 40 by 60 even. Maybe that small. And so the issue then becomes okay, it is a one acre residential lot with a primary residence on it but in my operation it will probably be the only place without eating up valuable farm land that I can site an agricultural building on my property. Now, that then falls under this 40,000 square foot lot but it is going to be involved with the agricultural operation on the other side of the property line and common ownership. SUPERVISOR HORTON: You are sighting a very unique and specific example and one that I don't think any of us up here actually have an answer to. MR. BAIZ: I just want to understand, do I fall under, does that one acre parcel keyed into my farmland fall under the .... COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: Well, I guess it all depends on how you make your application, you know? MR. BAIZ: Okay. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: To me that would be the answer, if you are looking to have it come in and be part of the one acre lot or you are going to come in and make it part of your farm operation, I think it all depends on how you make your application out and what you put down as your use for it. MR. BAIZ: Okay. Alright. Fine. And thank you for the clarification that agricultural buildings are not accessory buildings under this law. I appreciate that. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Baiz. And Ms. Gould. JENNY GOULD: I am kind of having a stroke that the building envelope, height envelope doesn't apply to accessory buildings because my neighbor's lot is less than 20,000 square feet, he has already built an accessory building which is 3.5 feet from the line, which is totally legal. Twenty-two feet to May 10, 2005 10 Public Hearing-Size, Height & Setback for Accessory Structures the ridge, totally legal under your new proposed code, 614 square feet, two story. There is nothing that prevents you from having two story and the key is, the reason he was able to do it is he is under 20 percent lot coverage. And here are the pictures. I mean, this accessory building is as large as most houses in the neighborhood. And you aren't going to stop that unless you put either some kind of building height envelope, or as Mr. Nickles said, some kind of multiplier on the side yards. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Are these for the record? To keep? Okay, thank you. COUNCILMAN ROSS: This is an accessory structure? MS. GOULD: That is an accessory structure. I am trying to give you, it is perfectly legal. It has (inaudible) accessory and storage. COUNCILMAN ROSS: There are pictures, I think, floating around in the audience of an accessory structure and this is really... MS. GOULD: If this is what you are trying to address, this is why you have to give specific examples because this is not going to cut it. If the building height envelope isn't applied to it or some kind of multiplier on the side yard. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Ms. Gould. Mr. Dinizio and then the gentleman in the back. JIM DINIZIO: Jim Dinizio, Greenport. Jenny is the exact example that I came here with tonight because in fact, that particular lot was before the Zoning Board and .... SUPERVISOR HORTON: And that was granted? MR. DINIZIO: Well, that wasn't the subject of our application, actually. It was the house, which I think is probably going to end up .... SUPERVISOR HORTON: The smaller building on the properly? MR. DINIZIO: Huh? SUPERVISOR HORTON: The smaller building in the picture? MR. DINIZIO: Uh, yeah. You can't see it because the accessory is in front of, it is behind the accessory. It is on the water. It is a waterfront lot, there is a lot of things probably involved in that but in any case, I think that raising that height 22 feet is probably a big mistake. And even the amount, although the 650 is probably just a single car garage, I am not sure, I know that is what you were looking basically for, you know, I walk past the house every morning that this lady lives next to and their structure seems to be pushing the envelope also. You know... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Jim, what you said before about height... May 10, 2005 11 Public Hearing-Size, Height & Setback for Accessory Structures MR. DINIZIO: About height? The 22 feet is excessive. For an accessory structure. I mean, if we are looking, if we are defining an accessory structure as a place that is accessory to the house, you know, that you park the car in, you do your, you know, painting or potting shed. I mean, the potting shed seems to be a real popular thing in the past year or so. Listen, we grant them and basically we let them have water but no heat and things like that. So, I think that you have really got to look at this a little bit closer, especially on smaller lots. I don't think you are punishing smaller lots with smaller accessory structures. It is a product of the lot. You know, I live on a quarter acre lot and you know, I don't think that I could put a garage in my backyard. It is 100 by 100. and you know, I have a shed back there, 10 by 10 and it seems to be enough. I know that, myself a properly rights person saying that enough is for all the properties is probably not consistent with my view but, with what I normally would say but I think that when you are addressing accessory structures and keeping in mind that that is what they should be for, you know, allowing anything more than throwing some 2 by 4's up on the rafters, you know, finishing a floor on the second floor, I think you ought, you should look at all of that. There shouldn't be a floor on that second floor. You know, something you can walk on. But again, then that comes down to the building inspector. One more comment, what the building inspector says to you, he lives in a different world than you or I do. He does. No, listen, we have him come before us and what we think is so confusing, when he comes before us makes so much sense. Because he lives in a different world than you or I because he is dealing with the structure. He is dealing with whether or not it is a useful floor space and we are dealing with, you know, a second floor. Okay? A second floor to him is livable space. You know, 8 foot ceilings, sheetrock, you know, electrical outlets everywhere. To us it is just a height and so you know, when he says you know that 22 foot building can't be second story, hey, that is only legally. It really has nothing to do with what happens after they get that CO. And naturally, we don't enforce that. I don't know if there is a mechanism that, where we can go knocking on doors and say, 'hey, you are living in there?' Very difficult to do. So, shy of not being able to knock on people's doors, you have to limit it in some way. Because it can get out of hand. I know it is affordable housing but honestly, it goes beyond that. If the structure is not a livable structure and the place burns down, I don't know, god forbid. I don't know who is to blame for that, certainly not the Town won't take responsibility for it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Sir, in the back, yes. JOHN DUMBLIS: Good evening, John Dumblis, Mattituck. First off} I have two questions and I believe I know the answer to the first. There is a clause in the code that accessory structures are allowed in the front yard of waterfront properties. I believe that is unchanged in this legislation. SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is correct. MR. DUMBLIS: Okay, so that will continue to be right. The other question I have is, how actually is the square footage determined? Because if you go to any of a variety of commercial plans that are available and perhaps our architect in residence here can address this a little further but in any case, you can find a variety of relatively what I would consider modest size garages with a loft space over head and they tend to from my experience, they tend to include that loft space in the square footage. Now I am told that the Town has a different interpretation, that this would be the footprint itself, not including any upper space. So I was just wondering if that could be clarified. May 10, 2005 12 Public Hearing-Size, Height & Setback for Accessory Structures SUPERVISOR HORTON: So the specific question is, how is the square footage of the accessory structure calculated? MR. DUMBLIS: Yes. COUNCILMAN ROMANELLI: I believe it is by footprint. UNIDENTIFIED: You are correct in the assumption it is by footprint. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Right. MR. DUMBLIS: But that is contradictory to standard practice, in a lot of commercial plans, so perhaps this is an ambiguity that might cause some problems. Okay, that said, I have a great deal of sympathy for people living on small lots and I certainly would not want an accessory structure looming over my residence. I have a different situation however. I have a lot in excess of an acre, which would be covered under this legislation. I also, I might have, I might say that I have infringements on setbacks on both sides of my lot, I have a non-conforming, pre-existing accessory structure three foot from my property line on one side. I have a residential structure, which actually was a surveying error when it was expanded several years ago, that infringes on the setback on the other side of the property. I am at the point now where I would like to build a garage on my property, I am already working with a builder and there was a comment made earlier in the evening that I definitely would echo is that plans already underway that are nearing completion that have not yet reached the submittal process, that there be some consideration given for that because basically if this law went into effect immediately or as soon as possible I would probably have to trash all the work that I have done on this project so far. But in any case, I understand I can go to the ZBA, I would prefer not to, I would like to build as-of-right but now I am being told that I am going to have a more rigorous setback on my property than either of my two neighbors and I feel that is blatantly unfair. That said, the other issue is again, my property is in excess of an acre, it is by Town record it is 1.1 acre by survey it is about a one and a quarter acre, you know, you be the judge. My house is a relatively modest house, I do not have a garage, I do not have an attached garage. I am a middle-class homeowner, I own several cars, I have a trailer-able boat, I have a small trailer that I use to take things to the dump. These items are now scattered around my property because I do not have a garage. I would like to build a reasonable garage to garage several vehicles, again, a small trailer or two and have a little bit of additional storage space possibly in the overhead loft. I fear that this code is going to preclude me from doing this. Now, Mr. Wickham mentioned earlier and I agree with what Mr. Wickham said that the basic criteria is somewhere around a two car garage, which seems reasonable and then again, if I was a small lot in a hamlet that would be a very admirable goal. But again, I have over an acre of property. My lot coverage now is somewhere under two percent. If I wanted to build the ultimate garage that I wanted to build, which again, it is not 1,500 square foot as somebody mentioned but a garage big enough to garage a couple of vehicles, a small boat and some yard equipment that I have in my basement at this point. I think I would be beyond the allowable limits of this code. So, again, with due sympathy for what everyone is concerned about, I think there should be a little more consideration for the larger lots on the larger side of this legislation so that I would not be limited to a two car garage on a one plus acre lot. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, sir. Yes, Mr. Simon. May 10, 2005 13 Public Hearing-Size, Height & Setback for Accessory Structures MICHAEL SIMON: Michael Simon, again, from the ZBA. First with regard to special circumstances such as we have just heard, of course this is precisely the domain in which the Zoning Board of Appeals operates, rather than to try to revise a code or proposed change to the code to fit a special circumstances, which is just asking for trouble. But what I really want to say is having heard some of the comments regarding some of the problems with accessory structures which are large and rather imposing, in addition to the one referred to by Ms. Gould, I am aware of at least two other situations where in fact the Zoning Board has been called to examine principal properly and haven't been allowed because of conformity, these rather large, rather livable garage structures which raise problems. So I would think that it might be, with regard to the accessory building resolution, it might be a good idea to go back and look at this. This is an opportunity I think to try to sort that out which should not be missed. In other words, if you are in the business of trying to revise the accessory building structure, there are lots of other instances such as we have heard which ought to be handled and because they are not special they are increasingly common. Ultimately that might mean a change in the code regarding the inhabitability of apartments in these accessory buildings which are now permitted, as the one (inaudible), large enough to be accessory apartments, whether they are or not, and as I said, at least two other of those have come to the attention of the Zoning Board of Appeals, although they are not within our domain. So I think that this is an opportunity to deal with a broader set of problems than merely the ones that are dealt with so eloquently in the resolution and the proposed law as it has been written. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Simon. Mr. Nickles. JOHN NICKLES, JR.: Good evening again. John Nickles, Junior. I think that when I first started hearing about these accessory buildings, concerns about the accessory buildings, mostly what I heard was them turning into dwellings. Now, I think that this code probably does address that somewhat but I think that you could eliminate second stories altogether and people will adapt to what the code says. And they will squeeze it into that space. That two car garage, it might be one story, that becomes a two car apartment or something. So, if there is something in the back of your mind that is motivating you to write this law that has something to do with that, know that the market always adapts and people always adapt to what the laws are and to what the circumstances are. You could eliminate out buildings and accessory structures altogether, you will have attached garages with areas above them. So if this is one of your primary concerns, this is not going to solve it; it is an enforcement issue. I would also like to give some support to the idea that I heard this evening about maybe having a proportion, a size proportional to rear lot area or to lot coverage. I think that that's a better idea and it will keep things in proportion to the size properly and the space that they are on. I think that is a better way to go. Thanks. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Are there other comments? Yes, Mr. Yakaboski. GREG YAKABOSKI: Greg Yakaboski, Southold. Two points, one, I think John, the point you make about legal apartments, if that is some of the motivation that is out there for the Board, it is really a code enforcement issue. You are not going to be able to solve it with the current law. SUPERVISOR HORTON: We lack some clarity on that. That is a good point raised. That is not the motivation, at least that hasn't been through the several years of work sessions that this has been discussed. Hasn't been the intent or the motivation behind that. May 10, 2005 14 Public Hearing-Size, Height & Setback for Accessory Structures MR. YAKABOSKI: Just hearing a lot of comments from the floor, Josh. SUPERVISOR HORTON: No, it is a good point. MR. YAKABOSKI: Real issue, but this is not going to get to it. Second question, just a quick question. Under the current law, again I don't have it in front of me, if there is, for example, let's say that this is passed tonight, and there had been a building permit already issued, somebody has it in their hand. No dirt, no shovel in the ground, no bricks on the ground. Can that move forward or not? SUPERVISOR HORTON: If they had a building permit issued .... MR. YAKABOSKI: Yesterday. Yesterday. You passed it, becomes effective today. Just give me an example. No, no, I know, it is effective when you file it... SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is important but that building permit would be valid under the code at the time it was issued. MR. YAKABOSKI: It could move forward, right? SUPERVISOR HORTON: Yeah. MR. YAKABOSKI: And on all of these things (inaudible), it does not preclude somebody coming forward to the ZBA and seeking relief. TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Correct. SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is correct. MR. YAKABOSKI: Thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Indeed. Any other comments from the floor? Are there other comments on this hearing? (No response) Is there anything that needs to be entered into the record? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Several comments that the Planning Board made earlier. "Height of 22 feet is excessive for accessory structures and should remain at 18 feet. It is not clear whether the height limitation of 22 feet for accessory structures is applicable to ag structures." Although I think we answered that. "The new restrictions for accessory structures are applicable to properties in the R-40 zoning district." I think we answered that. And the rest of it has to do with height, the earlier hearing. SUPERVISOR HORTON: Okay. Thank you very much. And we will close this hearing. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk