Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/01/2011 Hearing 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK REC~'vED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~OARoOFAPPEA~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall Southold, New York September 1, 2011 9:39 a.m. Board Members LESLIE KANES WEISMAN JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - GEORGE HORNING Member KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member MEMBER GOEHRINGER - Member Present: - Chairperson/Member Member (Absent) JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney VICKI TOTH - Secretary Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter P.O. Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 {631)-338-1409 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing: William L. Boswell #6494 Michael and Susan Jeffries %6498 Curtis Horton #6495 Nicholas Cutrone #6496 John and Alexandra Kapetanos #6499 Michael Phillips #6500 Michael Greenly Marketing Pension Plan %6503 Brian Glenn (CV) for William Bergrath %6492 Brian Glenn (CV) for William Bergrath #6493 Frank C. Gilbert #6501 Benali, LLC %6422 Deborah Penney #6484 Page: 3-21 21-38 38-70 71-81 81-88 89-106 107-110 111-164 111-164 165-170 171-193 193-232 Zoning Board of Appeals September I, 2011 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEARING %6494 WILLIAM L. BOSWELL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Request for variance from Article XXII, Section 280-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 5, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to relocate dwelling, at: 1) less than the foot setback from top of the bluff, 2) less than the minimum code required front yard setback of 50 feet. Located at: Off East End Road, Fishers Island. MS. MOORE: Good morning, Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant. Today I also have with me, Luke Boswell, who is also one of co-owners of the property. He is from Cincinnati, Ohio; correct? MR. BOSWELL: Yes. MS. MOORE: Just because of the importance of this application and so we could address any issues. Hopefully, we could ask the Board that if you approve this, that we could act on this quickly almost an immediate basis. So we can proceed. and Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pat, one your card CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: second, before you proceed with presentation. We have one green missing on this. MS. MOORE: I saw a letter came back from the Ferguson Museum. For some reason the address that is the Assessor's Office is an insufficient address. It came back. Would you like it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, we would like it for our file. MS. MOORE: (In Audible). (Stepped away from the microphone.) MS. TOTH: We have the affidavit of posting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And do you have a copy, Pat, of the LWRP? MS. MOORE: I didn't get a copy but I did come and review the file and I understand that the determination that has been made and that it is consistent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me give you a copy. And also the Suffolk County local determination. Now, that we got all that stuff out of the way. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 5 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOORE: May I continue? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please. MS. MOORE: From my written application for this variance, you and the plans, it is very obvious that the house needs to be relocated. The application before you is to move the house that was built in the 1920's and over the years, the mother nature has eroded the bluff and at this point, there have been numerous experts from Woodhull, reviewed the property and the recommendation has been move the house forward. As the initial immediate solution, we have made that application. done immediate. We did receive Unfortunately nothing can Trustee's to be There has to be a process. approval to relocate the house. Now, we are before you. Part of the application is also, the house, we need to relocate the sanitary system. That has been placed on the plans. So the application before you at this point is move the house to the closest possible setback from Old Mallory Road. The proposed setback from the road is 20 feet. The Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 setback from the bluff, because of the maximum possible, giving us our 20 foot setback. We were prepared to move it as close to the road as feasible. We had a little bit of flexibility. If you wanted us to move even closer to the road, however, the sanitary system needs to meet the setback requirements. So 20 feet, after consultation with our, Dick Strauss, whose our engineer on this project, this was the final location. We have had a small amount of additional erosion after the hurricane and affected one small portion of the property where they -- where there is presently a wood bridge in the back. It's a little platform. That area -- what happened with a very deep slow is, as mother nature and the land tries to stabilize itself so, at the top prior to the storm and prior to the hurricane, there was a vegetated lift and it was somewhat of a overlap. There was an undercutting of the slope below. The storm, in a sense, settled that area and the top of the vegetated lift fell into the bank. So it has in a way, somewhat Zoning Board of Appeals Septe~oer 1, 2011 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stabilized the slope because every time that the top of the land falls in, it in a sense, fills in the bank. We have checked with our house movers. I know Mr. Boswell has spoken with the final candidates for the house movers and he has confirmed that everything is fine and they're ready to proceed. And this is, for house movers, relatively straightforward process. They have done a lot worse or a lot more serious we are moves than this one. At this point, here to try and answer any questions you may have. I don't want to repeat what has already been submitted to you in writing. just want to address any questions that you might have. The area variances here, moving the house closer to the street, are consistent with the neighborhood. The Mulligan house was moved a couple of years ago closer to the street. The house across the street, which is another Hoey house, that is a very close to the street. So this area, while it is a three acre zoned parcels, are some of the preexisting nonconforming smaller parcels. And the home Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bas over the years been relocated and moved closer to the street, at a safe distance from the bluff. I do have some letters of support from the adjacent homeowners. They have sent e-mails. The neighbor John Mulligan. The neighbors Wooden, Kelly, Crowley Family sent a letter and Bart Harvey and Janet Smith sent a letter of support. So I have one set -- MEMBER HORNING: Was there anything with Citgo? MS. MOORE: We spoke to Citgo. I personally spoke to the head of Citgo, Trip Dupont. We contacted him very early in the process. They had no objection. They felt a little uncomfortable about sending a letter of support. They felt that was really not an appropriate role for them. However, they said, they had no opposition to it and they wished us luck. So they didn't send anything in writing, one way or the other. MEMBER HORNING: If they were in opposition, they would have said so? MS. MOORE: Absolutely. In fact, there had been some discussion that they Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are trying to get rid of their road end and to be a possibility to have the road end here, lead over to the family. It made absolutely no difference to our application. It wouldn't impact it one way or another. They're very supportive of preserving this house. It is one of the older houses on Fishers. Architecturally, it's a split level and supposed to be the first split levels in the country. So it has not only for the family, architecturally and culturally on Fishers. It's an important house. We want to preserve it. This is for Mr. Boswell, his children are fourth generation house. Any other questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What in this kind of foundation is being proposed here to split the house? MS. MOORE: My understanding from Dick Straus he is working on the foundation plan right now. It is for a foundation it's a poured foundation; correct? You may -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please state and Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 10 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your name for the transcript? MR. BOSWELL: My name is to the Luke Board Boswell, and good morning members. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: to you. MR. BOSWELL: question about the presently a poured concrete about 2 to 3 feet high. And be to have concrete footers And good morning proposing a full basement? MR. BOSWELL: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Who owns the house across the street? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And it is still going to be crawl space? You are not undetermined whether we would have poured walls or concrete block because of the issues of having pockets for the beams that are used to lift the house set in. So if we did it in concrete block, we would have a softer top on the wall. If we did it in block, it would be easier to do it that way. So it's an economic design issue. In answer to your foundation. It's crawl space, the plan would and it is Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 11 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BOSWELL: The house across the street is either or Bart Harvey and his wife Janet Marie Smith -- MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I said Hoey. Harvey. That was my mistake. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have any correspondences from them? You mentioned the name. MS. MOORE: No, there was a letter from one of the Harvey's. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I had the advantage of going to the site and viewing. The applicant Bart Harvey and he spoke to me and said that he is in favor of the project. And he realizes where the house is going to go and looked at the plans and he understands. And he is in favor of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, Ken. The greatest visual is going to be on that property right across the street. So I wanted the record to reflect some sort of attitude by that neighbor for this application. MS. MOORE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have no Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 further questions at the moment. Let's see -- I see that you are here. Did you have some comments to make with regard to this application? MR. VERITY: (In Audible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry, Mike. You have to come up to the mic. We're recording. MR. VERITY: I don't want to make it official. Do I have to make it official? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have to note you are here. What's your name? MR. VERITY: Building Inspector Southold. Michael Verity, for the Town of Chief CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very much for taking the time. MR. VERITY: Not a problem. I am requested to review the property yesterday after the storm. So I did so. And there is an obvious need to do what they're requesting. There is really not to many options. I heard you mention about the house across the street. I don't have the elevation's but from what I recall, I think Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the house across the street is higher. MR. BOSWELL: The house across the street essentially has three levels. It is about five feet lower than the front door level. George, you might recall, how that leads up. But because it is a split level, it's about the same level as the seaside level. MR. VERITY: This house would be coming down out of -- I think the visual impact won't effect the house across the street. I was only there for about an hour or so. Thank you. There are no other options to be honest with you. You know, another storm or two can be a problem for the west side of that building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Thank you very much. Does anyone else on the Board have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have one. The normal question to either the attorney or Mr. Boswell, the issue of the effect of a 20 foot setback and I was just conferring with George, although I have not been able to go, this is a 40 foot -- well, the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 right-of-way is 40 foot, the road itself of course is not. And it's a dead-end road. So considerably it only services yourself and the people across the street. MS. MOORE: There is a third house -- MEMBER GOEBRINGER: At the end, where the circle is at? MS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that is basically where it services? MS. MOORE: That is right. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is no attempt to widen the road in any way? There is no attempt to shrink the road in any way? Leave it as the same as it has always been? going MS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: to stay the impact? MS. MOORE: Yes. So the impact is MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was the only question that I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: an The house has already established building envelope. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 15 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 So it is what it is. MS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So to look at the curve of the road, it's virtually impossible, giving the two corners of that house and the curve of the road and the required location of the septic, could do much better than that 20 foot setback? MS. MOORE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you are considering bluff setback. It appears to be that the proposal is very carefully thought out. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a huge structure and it's a very beautiful structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The lets say from corner to corner is 20 As the house -- the house s actually recessed farther a little bit MS. MOORE: Right. back setbacks feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it is not going to be quite as severe of a mass, as it might appear to be. George, do you have questions? Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER HORNING: Just a comment. The minimum setback for the two wings of the house, is kind of close to the road. We have something from the LWRP where they are saying that the project is consistent with their policy standards. You mentioned the Trustee's, do we have the document yet? MS. MOORE: I haven't received it yet. We had the hearing last Wednesday. So they must be in the process of typing it up and issuing it. Usually, we have to give them -- I -- their inspection fee. So we are expecting it any moment. They acted on it that evening. Jake Radameyer had been over to the property pretty much and described the conditions for the rest of the Board and the Board had no issues. MEMBER HORNING: Looking at the overall character of the neighborhood there, are there any other buildable lots? We know that the Citgo has the right-of-way, 50 foot right-of-way going right down to the shore line. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 17 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOORE: Correct. Certain problems occur when you acquire a road end. You don't -- the road end always's has a certain amount of right-of-way that it develops. So whether that road end gets conveyed to the adjacent owner, it is going to remain unimproved and remain just as it is. But we really can't attach it to our property. Advice to the owners is, you don't want to attach it because it has the rights of others to cross it and you don't title by is a clear So want to essentially pollute your the attaching a road end to what title of your piece of property. regardless of whether it is conveyed or not, that will remain as a open space, in sense. On the westerly border of the property, that is developed, of course and they have, according to the survey, a 40 foot front yard setback. MS. MOORE: Right. They their house -- 10 or 15 years ago, okay. MEMBER BORNING: The street MEMBER HORNING: a had relocated ago. 40 years next to Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 18 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2] 22 23 24 25 the Bart Harvey house, describe the potential that area? MS. MOORE: -- you would have can you just for any building in undersized lots and that is not a recommended take a great deal subdivision. You for variances. It -- option there. MEMBER HORNING: about that? To my knowledge, there is to do a subdivision of highly -- it is approach. It would also of time to do a would have to come here really there is no us the status Harvey? MS. MOORE: Across MEMBER HORNING: MR. BOSWELL: It Can Mr. Boswell tell About Bart the street? Yes. is my understanding that we presently have about 1.7 acres. hesitate to raise my right hand and say that is the number but the Bart Harvey plot, I believe is .6 acres and the further down the circle, the Wooten, Crowly, is about three acres. address you question, George, neighboring house which is my cousins, Kelly house, I think In order to Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there was an initial conversation to try and combine all three lots and then rejinger (sic) them all. And it was much determined that was really not feasible because of the three acre and we would have to downsize some lots, which was my would be something particularly favorable MEMBER HORNING: going to go there right curious, in moving this what is the possibility developable lot and another house? MS. MOORE: No, other lots across the have to be created. MEMBER HORNING: Right. they own the whole piece? MS. MOORE: If you look diagram, it gives you a what it looks like. You can property is long and narrow. identified as 7-5-10 -- oh, pretty zoning existing understanding, that that you would not look on. Right. We are not now. I was just house, lets say, of there being a that there would be I am not aware of any street. They would The Harvey's, at the better picture of see the Harvey It is 34-2. Thank Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 20 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you. Here let me show you. So you see can see that the house across the street, the house is right on top of the road. It's extremely narrow. MEMBER HORNING: My question is, is it true that the Bart Harvey property borders the Kelly property along that road? MS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER HORNING: And there developable lot in between there? MS. MOORE: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: is no one else in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. Ail in favor? Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. Is there any Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6498 MICHAEL AND SUSAN JEFFRIES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next application is for Michael and Susan Jeffries. Request for variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's July 7, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit construct a retaining wall, at: 1) less than 100 foot setback from top of the bluff. This is a deviation from the prior ZBA decision %6167. Located at East End Road, adjacent to Block Island Sound, Fishers Island. We have one green card missing on this application? MS. MOORE: That I haven't seen it come back. As soon as it comes back, we will get it over to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, Pat. Also we have a letter of local determination and a LWRP memorandum, indicating the project is consistent. Do you have a copy of that Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or would you like it? MS. MOORE: I will take it for my file. Good morning, Patricia Moore on behalf of the Jeffries. I also have with today, Quincy Hammond, who is the design me professional and I will defer to her on some of the design issues of the proposed retaining wall. As you know from your file, the Board had granted approval to build a pool and a initial retaining wall to maintain the flat portion of the property. This piece of property is one that is hilly. It doesn't truly have a bluff. When I asked Mr. Straus, it does not really a bluff. It's a slope in a sense and it is tapers down to a rocky shoreline. He did provide for us a cross section and at this point, I will ask Quincy to submit that to the Board. What we anticipated a concern of the Board, would be the influence of a secondary wall, as far as weight to the shoreline and Dick Strauss provided the cross section showing that. At this point, Quincy, do you want to address that issue? Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HAMMOND: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name for the record. MS. HAMMOND: Quincy Hammond, I am the landscape architect for the Jeffries' Family. The last page of the handout that I from Dick the bluff If you cross just gave you, is a cross section Straus showing that the impact on is minimal and the distance is far. look on the right hand side of this section on this plan, the influence of the wall on the bluff is diagonal and does not really affect the top of the bluff at all. I also included an e-mail from him, Dick Strauss, saying that - it is the second page of this handout that I just handed to you. Saying that the cross section and that the zone of influence is not near the top of the bluff. We also got the information from the structural engineer. The weight of the wall and the soil that would be retained within the wall because it is creating a plantar. This is the first page and it says that overall these surcharges are pretty light, 2100 pounds per linear Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 24 l 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 foot. And that a 600 pound per square foot of the retained soil for the plantar that is created by the wall. I could discuss the design issue, if you would like to hear that? And what we feel the impact is to the overall visual from the site, as be it from the water. We -- this wall, is formed part of the pool enclosure and obviously we need a pool enclosure to meet safety requirements and we did not want to try and incorporate a pool enclosure within the planting of the bluff because we felt that would be more impactful to the visual aspect. So this is an attempt to create a pool enclosure and a safety element from the high level of the swimming pool down to the low drop. Help break that fall, if you will. This new wall, as I said, is a plantar. It would be filled with shrubs and then the front of the wall, would be planted with ivy. So all you would see is green. Just green. You would not see any brick wall at all. And I think that is it for me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have a Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question. I remember this application and your testimony a long time ago. 2008, I believe, and were you not aware at that time that you were building 7 1/2 foot retaining wall? MS. HAMMOND: Yes, of course. And really this is more about the pool enclosure itself. And you know, we have a combination of elements here with the gray and the connection to the house. And that we have to keep the pool enclosure for the door to have to be wired to the alarm and for those reasons. We will have a fence close to the pool. At that point, we had intended to -- my thinking at that point, was that a pool enclosure fence could be made around the perimeter of the bluff or the perimeter of the the bluff. But I had probably be better we bring the fence possible. So this incorporating the structure that is house. property closest to advised that it would for a visual impact, if close to the building as is a means of pool enclosure into the associated with the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Although I understand what you are saying, the visual advice to soften the visual of that very massive wall from the water. The Board granted a fairly substantial setback based upon the size of this house and the size of the property and so on. The setback was 45 1/2 feet. MS. HAMMOND: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, you are requesting now make it 38.4 additional -- a new nonconformity, which would feet from the bluff. An MS. HAMMOND: 5 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I would like you to, otherwise the visual impact, which could be softened by planting shrubs at the base of that wall and having them grow up. Rather them having something planted on the top and have them grow down, what is the necessity, in your opinion, for this additional nonconformity that goes beyond the variance originally? MS. HAMMOND: that was granted to you Safety. Because we have Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 this 7 1/2 wall and yes, everyone was aware that we had that before. But we also didn't have much of a choice because of the hilly nature. And to create a flat base, would require a 7 1/2 foot drop from the wall. So this additional wall creates another level, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: improve safety, when they're with -- MS. HAMMOND: We have a guardrail. These are these drawings, which I think were submitted to you previously. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have them. MS. HAMMOND: The planting at this level, will greatly cushion a fall from the upper level and then going with the additional guard rail. I mean, if we did even more planting at the base of this 4 1/2 tall wall, it would cushion again. Further, their son has children and they have grandchildren coming to the swimming pool and they wanted to take some How does that planting that is 3 1/2 feet below the top of the wall and then another drop of a 4 1/2 foot wall. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 additional measures to increase the safety of this area because of where the swimming pool is set. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just reiterate your previous statement, so I understand it correctly. It indicates that the load on that additional wall is going to have no adverse environmental impact? MS. HAMMOND: Correct. MS. MOORE: Correct. (In Audible). (Stepped away from the microphone.) MEMBER HORNING: So what is the actual distance from the side of the edge of the pool to the existing wall that the variance was granted for? MS. HAMMOND: I believe that it is 6 feet. There is no dimension because as I recall from years of working on the project, it is 6 feet. The green grassy area is about 6 feet. And then there is about an additional 16 inches for the width of the wall. So it's 17 1/2 feet total. MEMBER HORNING: In looking at this that you are looking at, where was the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fence going to be without this new variance? MS. HAMMOND: Within the planting along the top of the bluff. Along this area. MS. MOORE: Along the top of the bluff, there, is where the fence enclosure will be. But that would be up to the Trustees to allow us to put a fence there. My experience with the Trustees is that they prefer that we would not put close as to the bluff as that. the treatment to soften the wall, as well as, provide the fencing to meet code. fences that So this was very tall guardrail MEMBER HORNING: I don't have the original file. I have the decision. I have in the original application of the pool, you must have had a fence application; is that correct? MS. MOORE: I don't know that we actually got to that point. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't the issue even came up I don't remember that. know that when we went there. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 30 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER HORNING: The Town doesn't determine where the fence would go? MS. MOORE: Only the height of the fence is determined by the Building Department. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I guess we should blame ourselves, but there was actually no discussion about the fence at all. MS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER HORNING: Just curious. MS. HAMMOND: The fence is drawn here, and as you can see it is very close and tight to the house. (In Audible). Because of the grade here, the hilly nature of the site, we have different techniques to address the pool enclosure. And we have to meet a minimum height for the pool enclosure and we have to set alarms on the house for that aspect. We have a lot of issues to deal with. And this is the design team and the Jeffries preferred solution. And we have been through a lot of options ourselves. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, any questions? Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) MEMBER HORNING: of questions? CHAIRPERSON MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask a couple WEISMAN: Yes. Back on the Pat, were you involved decisions, them? MS. MOORE: Ail of them. previous in any of alternative best location, would be not in your jurisdiction, because you don't need a variance for a fence; however, it would be more of an environmental issue for the MS. MOORE: Well, the place to put the pool would have been on the lawn area closest to the bluff. So in a sense, an pool fence somewhere to meet going with just the original is that correct? have put a Town Code, application; MEMBER HORNING: The one quick question on the pool and the pool application, for safety reasons, you could Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Trustees to place that fence on the lawn, on the bank. So that was the alternative. So in looking at the wall and to have -- well, the secondary wall creates am appearance of the pool MEMBER HORNING: enclosure. I understand. are describing two levels MS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER HORNING: plan, was there a guard original retaining wall? MS. MOORE: There of safety? In the original rail around the You bluff and at a height exceeding the was planting. MEMBER HORNING: You could? MS. HAMMOND: Yeah, theoretically but it is a higher drop again. MEMBER HORNING: I am curious, in the decision #5924, Pat, which I guess you say you were involved with. The basis for the -- this is for the house itself. The original in 2006, and part of the basis for the application, it says the basis for the location of the new dwelling structure, after demolition of existing building, will be left at 100 feet from the top of the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 code limitation of two and a half stories. MS. MOORE: That was an interpretation of the Building Department because of these properties and because it is hilly, the front of the building, the garage entrance is underground. It has always been underground. So because of the entry way, essentially at the basement level, they deemed the structure to be three story's, even though the finished floor, living space is a standard, basement, first floor, second floor. So it was a technical determinant that you had three story's, due to the grade of the property. The property is like a mound. The back of the property mounds down to the beach. And then the front of the property -- you have a plateau where the house is placed and then you have the first and second floor -- actually from one side, it's a one story house. From centered, it's a two-story house and from the front yard, it's a place, as determined from the Building Department at times, a three-story Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 34 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because of the basement level entry way. A direct access into the basement. It is a very interesting site. MS. HAMMOND: If I may just interrupt for one second. The driveway entrance from the street is elevation 12. The front of the house is the natural grade and that is 36. So we have quite of a lot of elevations to deal with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How high is the existing brick wall from the level of the pool, grass? the grass? How high above the MS. HAMMOND: 6 inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is to prevent the installation of high fence around either on a four foot top of that brick for that, or just within that perimeter or on top of the brick wall and camouflaging that will ivy. What is to prevent that? MS. HAMMOND: Our problem with that approach, is that it increases additional 7 foot drop. So if a child were to climb up that fence and fall over it, it would be Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 feet. So that was our concern. It was about providing an intermediate break between the 7 foot to the grade below. This additional plantar would do that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just to capitalize on that for one second. You said that the depth between both walls would be 5 foot 4 inches. chance in making that smaller You know, in reality to plant need 2 1/2 3 feet. shrubs. MS. HAMMOND: Certainly it Is there any than that? ivy, you only These would only have could be narrowed, if you change the planting to somewhat of a narrow plant. That is feasible. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A second wall is probably a good thing. But, I am giving me -- a little more setback would, for me, be a better situation. MS. MOORE: What would be the minimum amount for healthy shrubs to live? MS. HAMMOND: Three feet. That gives you adequate soils. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: MS. HAMMOND: It's Is it brick or -- a brick foundation Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with poured. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: MS. HAMMOND: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: need the 16 inches? MS. HAMMOND: MEMBER GOEHRINGER: concrete. Brick veneer? That is why you Exactly. Reinforced MS. HAMMOND: Exactly. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So us something regarding that, with this in the next two weeks? MS. MOORE: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: suggesting that you want an you can give so we can deal Are you alternative or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can look at that as alternative relief. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You might want to note the size of the footings. It looks like it might overlap. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They can cut it an amended application? MS. MOORE: Whether it's amended or altered, that is fine, we can provide that. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do you fairly one year back. MS. HAMMOND: We will ask him to modify the setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How much time need? MS. HAMMOND: We can have it done quickly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other comments from anyone? MEMBER HORNING: I would like to ask one other question. Regarding the original house application and the designs, architecture and plans, were there any major changes in the architectural plans then in 2006 and now and what's there? MS. MOORE: An additional structure is under construction for the garage. The attached garage, but that conforms with all the setbacks. So we would have (In Audible). I think we dealt with the DEC for the front yard and it is within a setback of the freshwater pond that is there. So that was the only deviation from the original. That is my memory. Off the top of my head, I can't really tell you Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 if there are any other changes. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you. I think I am done with my questioning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no other comments, I am going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended setback design. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. {See Minutes for Resolution.) ******************************************* HEARING #6495 - CURTIS HORTON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next application is for Curtis Horton. That is a request for a Waiver of Merger under Article II, Section 280-10A, to unmerge land identified as SCTM# 1000-104-6-14 based on the Building Inspector's May 17, 2011 Notice of Disapproval, which states adjoining nonconforming lots Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 held in common ownership shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule (minimum 40,000 square feet in this R-40 Residential Zone District) this lot is merged with lot 104-6-20.1 located at 1040 Oak Drive, (1835 Mason Drive also Hickey Drive, Cutchogue. Is there this application. MR. LARK: someone here to represent Yes. Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning. MR. LARK: Richard Lark, P.O. Box Main Road, Cutchogue. At the -- two preliminary things. When I walked in the room today, one of the neighbors gave letter Board. that she would like to (In Audible). (Stepped away from the give to me a the MR. LARK: That has not been returned. As you said in the announcement, this is for a Waiver of Merger and the criteria (In Audible) that property hadn't been transferred to an unrelated person. That the proposed waiver is compared in 976 microphone.) Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 40 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 size to the majority of the lot. And it has been recognized and treated as a second independent lot. And it will not create an adverse effect on the neighborhood. The application, I really can't say too much more then what you have in front of you. I have here today, which is the applicant, Wells Horton, who is the executor of the estate. This came to a head, when they were trying to distribute the estate. It came to a screeching holt because one child was going to get one lot and the other child was going to get the other lot. Until, they said, wait a minute. We have a problem with the Merger Law. So that is why we are here. And I think, like I said, the application is fairly self explanatory. It is a little unusual in that you have two corner lots. And the other thing is, when that subdivision was created in the late 40's, before we had all the rules and regulations, all the perimeter lots touching the water were big. And the tax map clearly shows that when you look at it. Why they did it that way, but that is the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 41 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way the neighborhood was developed. This lot is consistent with all of the interior lots of the neighborhood. It is consistent. The other thing that needs to be noted on it, they are all older lots. Most homes are on older lots, and this of the will conform with having a house on the lot that is requesting the Waiver of Merger. And lastly, they are going to speak on that more than I. I addressed it in the application before you. From the executors point of view, they want to keep it in the family and the only way they can do that, is one lot go to the daughter and one lot go to the son. So that is why we are here. If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them. The executor is here and I as CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Did he forward this letter? This is brief, so I am going to read it. So my colleagues have benefit of it. MR. LARK: I It was just handed to me walked into the room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Fine. I am know he wants to say a few words to you. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to read it, so that everyone has an opportunity to address it. To Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Dated September 1, 2011. In regards to the case before the Board requesting Waiver of Merger to the property of the Estate of Curtis Horton, it is important. I am a neighbor owning the adjoining property. am the sister-in-law to Curtis and Mary I Jane Horton. I have known them closely and very personally for over 50 years. It was always the Horton's intention to that the property would be for their children. If the lots would remain in one piece, (In Audible) result in a micmansion on the corner, resulting in pollution and a change in the neighborhoods character. Mr. Horton planned all (In Audible) to change the title but death intervened. I have no objection to the Waiver of Merger. This is signed by Dorothy Drougan. She lives at 1735 Mason Drive. You will get copies of this. Did you want to have someone else address the Board? Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HORTON: I am Wells Horton. I am the executor of my dads estate. I live in 1414 (In Audible) Factor Road, New York which is about 40 miles south of beautiful New York. In the middle of nowhere. I was the first kid to grow up in this development. We moved in December of 1954, when dad built the house. I started in the Kindergarten, I had to walk out to, at time, Bay Avenue but my sidocousin got it changed to Skunk Lane. I had to walk out to Bay Avenue and cross the road. We are not greatly related but wait for the bus there. I lived there. I even caught my first fish on the property that we are talking about, the lot. I was out there and a fellow dropped a flounder at my feet and it's flapping. She picked it up for me. I was probably 4 or 5 at the time. As the executor of this estate, I ran into a problem. It wasn't clear with my sister on what she wanted to do at the time. She has decided that she wants to stay here and apparently, have it so she can stay here and I am in very likely in a condition to Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 44 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 move back. But I am not in a position to do that now. The only way that I can break up the estate or settle the estate, is to either sell the entire two lots together. I feel that this is a nice piece of property with the potential to have a lot bigger what is on there now. I would like to be able to hold on to one of the properties and my sister wants to be able to hold on to another property. She wants to live there. So I would like the ability to do what my dad has always intended and that was to keep that property separate. To always have it separate. I am not sure if you knew my dad, but he was always -- he was a great guy but he was a little stubborn. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I knew your father very well. MR. HORTON: It was a year ago, a couple of days ago that he died. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When your family purchased this unimproved lot, it would have appear from the records, that we have this and they purchased this in both Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of their William Horton? MR. HORTON: That is what but that is not what my dad ever He said that it was in his name. The back lot was in his name. And what he has told me and what is reality, obviously don't match up. I was informed of that yesterday. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to ask your attorney to come back up. What I am trying to clarify, it would appear that it was purchased jointly and then probably names, Mary Jane Horton and Curtis I was told told me. merged upon death of Mary Jane Horton because it became the same old owner as Curtis William Horton on that lot. So this is Merger upon Death. MR. LARK: That is in reality what had happened. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just wanted the record to reflect that. Is there anyone else to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: questions from the Board? that would like Are there Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 46 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER HORNING: I have a few. Looking at the vacant lot, you feel comfortable that you can build a buildable footprint without the variances? need of any MR. HORTON: As far as I am aware, yes, but I am not an attorney. I do chair the local Planning Board where I live. I mean, our annual budget is $200.00. So it's a little bit different. But I believe so, yes . MEMBER HORNING: It is helpful to us if we have some sort of the where the proposed building would be. MR. HORTON: To be honest don't know. I haven't thought wanted to do down the road, in living home. MR. LARK: It would be a About 1700 square the zoning is set Audible) (Far away MR. LARK: thoughts if you with you, I of what I terms of a modest home. feet. But the way that up, the setback. (In from the microphone.) That was one of my initial could locate a house in the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 47 1 2 B 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 center portion and coming back to the Board for area variances, even though it is on the corner lot. You can't build a huge home. MEMBER HORNING: Ail right. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? MS. HORTON: Hi, I am Audrey Horton. I know a couple of you. I just wanted to say that the very first question that you asked. I served on the Conservation Advisory Committee here in this Town and whatever is done, I certainly want it to go along with the values that we support there. At this point, Wells and I aren't even starting to think about what is going there. I know my mother always dreamed of having a raised ranch with a beautiful view. I have a background in real estate and another 17 years as a realtor and whatever I want to have there would support the rest of the neighborhood, as far as that goes. And support my values and the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 values that my brother shares for conservation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. MS. HORTON: Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else? MR. BUBANJE: My name is Nick Bunanje. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you spell your last name for the record? MR. BUBANJE: Here you go. My wife and I live at 200 Hickory and Mason Drive. Our property on Hickory Drive, which is across from the subject property covers the entire block. I am the only one across those property and facing them. We have owned the property for about 26 years. We enjoyed the fact that there was only one house facing out. That is what it was when we bought the property. Curt Horton was a wonderful man. We used to go out and have beautiful discussions about his home. My wife did his supermarket shopping for the last couple of years when he was alive. We visited him while he was in the hospitals Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 49 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 in Greenport and in Westhampton and other places. My understanding is that the Town of Southold rules have always been for the R-40 Residential District, minimum amount of 40,000 square feet per property. As you know, this proposed project single lot is not close to independent requirements and the lots. As a matter of fact, I don't know if both of them come together they would be 40,000 square feet. What I am hoping for, is that it sets a precedent for the future. I lived in the city most of my life. I still do. I have lived with people under me, over me, side of me and etcetera. I came out here basically because I wanted the space. If this sets a precedent or this precedent is established, my son might come out and -- of he will benefit from it, we could sell a lot and we can divide it and sell part of my property, if we wish, even though the Zoning Board disapproves. If you establish that this is all right to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, there is a difference between the two recorded lots. That is, they were recorded under a deed Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and they were merged under the Merger Law. And a larger lot that you simply apply for a subdivision on. They're very, very different. They were two lots. Two separate lots. MR. HORTON: Just for the record, it was actually two smaller lots and then the property next door of which, both owners, are here, were subdivided. It was a lot and then it was another lot. Based on the old Mason development. And this in fact was three, I will point that out. Initially, way, way back in 1949, when the (In Audible) purchases it, they were the first purchasers of the property. They brought it all together and built a house on all three. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: May I ask you a question? MR. HORTON: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How many lots, do you think in this subdivision, are unimproved at this point? MR. BUBANJE: They are existing lots. Curt, this is my understanding, he had it Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 51 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 as one lot. When I bought the house, I though it was one lot. Then they had told me it was two but he didn't know what he was going to be doing with the other one because of the subdivisions, that the requirements might be different. This was in the last two years of his life. I look at the property. If it's split and another house is split there. I can have two new neighbors looking at me. My reason for coming here was to have a larger piece of land because I have always loved in a city environment where it is always compacted. One of the things, I mean, the market value is declining. I know for a fact that my property value will drop if another house is put there. That is a given. The other thing is, the beauty of that lot, is that it has natural trees. That is what I can look at. My driveway comes out and looks at this other corner. One thing I did have a problem with, I don't think that Wells did this purposely. I noticed an Applications Transaction Disclosure form. Curtis said he didn't Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 52 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you with any Town employee, and he is an honest have a relationship which I know him individual, okay. And obviously on that form, his sister has worked for the Town for several years, if I am not mistaken. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me inform that if you are referring to the Conservation Advisory Committee, that is not the Town employees. That is an appointed position that is a committee that is without compensation. It was an unpaid committee appointment. The Town Board does that with a number of committees. I also see that you mention that Ms. Horton ran for Southold Trustee. She is not a trustee, that had she become a trustee, then you are absolutely right. She would have then been a Town employee. However, the mere fact that she ran in no way contradicts the Transaction Disclosure form. MR. BUBANJE: Advisory counsel -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: employee of the Town. MR. BUBANJE: Okay. The Conservation That is not an And she also Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tried for trustee. She got 11% of the votes, 2,000 votes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: She doesn't get a paycheck for that. MR. BUBANJE: I don't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: are an employee, Well, then you usually understand. if you get paid. MR. BUBANJE: She was on the (In Audible) Committee -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is a voluntary -- MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I think there some validity there. That she does work is for the Town and does have influence. I mean, it is valid, from my opinion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Fine, I will not argue with the fact that people who active by being available and ready to serve as a pro-bono capacity, may have insight into the Town as far as citizen is not involved with that. However, the Transactional Disclosure Form refers to employee, and I want it to be clear that employee is someone who has the Social Security number filed with this Town and are some who an an Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 54 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 receives compensation. MR. BUBANJE: That's all. Thank you. MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask something? MR. BUBANJE: Just one other thing. The building permit application, is the subject property within 100 feet of freshwater wetlands, and both things he put in, no. I don't know how he determined that it wasn't within 100 feet. Is the subject property within 300 feet of titled wetlands? He says, "no." I don't know how he determined that one. My property is, one side is facing -- it's on the water basically. When I went there, I wanted to put in a natural opening, a little floating dock there. And they came to me and said that I can't do that because I am within the distance of it from the wetlands. I ended up having to put a dock in the open water. If the subject property requires DEC permits, how can you say no you don't need anything? It could be 100 feet. It could be 300 feet from the titled wetlands with a determination. The water comes up all the way into the titled wetlands. This house is Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 across the street from it. So that may impact on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One thing that it is important to recognize is that this is not an permit. Merger, you know, testimony carefully application for a building This is an application of Waiver of to reflect the recorded deed. And certainly, we are here to hear from all of the third-parties. We consider your comments as well as any one else's. However, it is important that you understand what this Board is really looking at and the criteria that we use for the Waiver of Merger. MR. BUBANJE: What is the size of that property that is going I have a map somewhere. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: feet and then the other lot square feet. to be spun off? 14,442 square is 14,435 MR. BUBANJE: Now, does that mean that you set the precedent, I can take 13,000 14,000 square feet out of my property -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: NO. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lot is MR. BUBANJE: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: described as a single Why not? Because your lot. And this lot has -- historically was two separate lots. The Town developed a code, where lots that did not conform to the zoning that was put in place, would merge, if they were adjacent and if they were owned by the same person. To make them more conforming. It's called upzoning. And what happened in this case, is that the subdivision was developed before R-40 was even in place. So all those lots on the landward side, the interior lots, they are all nonconforming to R-40. They are all about 12,000 square feet. In this case, the two lots are about 14,000 and change. MR. BUBANJE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board is here to recognize the rights of property owners when they fall under certain criteria. To undo that upzoning. And there is a list of things that we have to follow legally, that there counsel is addressing in their application. In other words, we Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 don't do this based upon whatever we feel like doing. We have very specific criteria that we have to have justifiable evidence supporting unmerger. hardship the legal requirements for Not long ago, that there was created unintentionally when a mergers took place upon death. Say sometimes a husband had one lot and the wife had the other lot. They were the same but separate. They were kept that way. When one person dies and they inherit that other property, then those properties became the sole ownership of one person. Then that merged them and, the merger upon death, and then the Town changed its code to recognize that in those instances where people had intention of keeping it separately every and that merger took place upon the death of one of the owners, that Merger Upon Death was not a criteria that we can unmerge. Which is why I asked counsel if that was his understanding as to what happened in this case because I wanted the record to reflect the circumstances in which the merger took place. That is a very Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 long way of explaining, but I am a teacher and I can't help explaining myself. So forgive me to try and instruct the audience. Sometimes it's hard to understand what the Board has to follow legally. MR. BUBANJE: Okay. MEMBER HORNING: Leslie, can I ask a question? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sir, before you sit down, one of our Board members would like to ask you a question. MEMBER HORNING: Quickly for the record, you were stating the potential impact on your property values and your views, if you looked across the street and saw a second house there. MR. BUBANJE: Yes. This I don't know what is going to go there. Someone could put a house there that might be a shack or something. Not that the Board would approve it but they could put something in there that could decrease the value of all the homes in the area. (In MEMBER HORNING: is not the Audible). That may be correct. forum for you to address Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 59 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the potential of you putting up on your lot. What I want to ask is, in your view shed, you look across the street now and you see one house now, perhaps you might see two and you wouldn't want to see two. What do you see when you lok out on the north side of the house. MR. BUBANJE: Hickory. MEMBER HORNING: Is there in between you? MR. BUBANJE: No, there parcel another is the street. MEMBER HORNING: Ail right. Maybe we are not talking about the same directions. Looking easterly, what do you see? MR. BUBANJE: The marina? MEMBER HORNING: Do you see water? What is your view shed of looking east, sir? MR. BUBANJE: I have the one property. On one side of me, Curt's home and the -- MEMBER HORNING: Lets looking to the west. Looking creek, what do you see? I am call that across the asking this Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 60 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 gentleman. MR. BUBANJE: I don't know exactly which direction is which. I can give you the four sides of my boundary. MEMBER HORNING: Please. MR. BUBANJE: The zoning property is across Hickory. MEMBER HORNING: Yes. And what do you see? MR. BUBANJE: there MEMBER HORNING: now. MR. BUBANJE: down to the water, side of this house MEMBER HORNING: Woods. You see woods right The next street coming which is on the other Are you going clockwise now, sir? MR. BUBANJE: The house that there now is on the corner. MEMBER HORNING: If we are envisioning it, can you please go exist clockwise. First you have Horton House, then you have the vacant lot. Then you see what? Then you see what is to the east? And what do you see to the south? Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 61 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BUBANJE: Let me do something else here. Make it simple. MEMBER HORNING: I am trying to get to the character of the neighborhood. MR. BUBANJE: This is water over here. MEMBER the water? MR. BUBANJE: MEMBER HORNING: see water? MR. HORNING: Your property is on Yes. So two sides, you Is that what you are saying? BUBANJE: I have water over here. And on this side, I have water and titled wetlands. MEMBER HORNING: Looking towards Mason Drive, what do you see? MR. BUBANJE: I see houses that are set back. They are set back quite a bit because they are on water too. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. MR. BUBANJE: Here is water. MEMBER HORNING: Understand, you have water on two sides and houses on two sides. Thank you. Okay. Got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I had a Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question that t don't think I got an answer to. I am going to ask the applicant or his agent to answer it. Every one of us has made a site inspection of this property. Just so you are aware of that. The Board goes out and inspects every application that is before us. So we had a chance to drive around in the neighborhood. To get feel of what size was on the water inland side and so forth. how many lots within that undeveloped? the lots were and what side and what was on the In your opinion, subdivision are house other about that, the individual who owns that, is here. And as far as I am aware, I am not aware of any other subdivision vacant lots. Maybe someone else here is but I am not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? MS. LANGEMYR: I do. My name is Joan MR. HORTON: Lets say, where my dads is, that block, I am aware of the one lot is separate. If you need more Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Langemyr. And my home is adjacent to the property that they are considering for unmerge. please MS. today was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you spell your name for the record? MS. LANGEMYR: L-A-N-G-E-M-Y-R. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. LANGEMYR: One of my questions already answered by Audrey. I just would like to be put on record without making a statement. There is a little more than one page and the beginning is very light into the personal. It gives situation. My husband died January 21, 1973 and I moved into our newly built home 5 days later as a widow. I worked for Prudential Insurance Company for a total of 43 years. I traveled to Smithtown, New York, 110 miles a day, for 18 years. During that time, I purchased the property next to my home with the same frontage of 125 foot and was told it could be sold and (In Audible). Before I purchased the property, I had a meeting with the Board and on a tape Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recorder they told me at that time, I could either build up on it or sell it, for someone to build on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What year was this? MS. LANGEMYR: This was about maybe 20 years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And what Board? MS. LANGEMYR: Well, I came here for a meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Was it the Zoning Board -- MS. LANGEMYR: It was a tiny room in Town Hall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was probably the Town Board. MS. LANGEMYR: It probably was the Town Board. Maybe I can explain, I was told it could be sold and then built. I saved the money over a number of years so this could be a little nest egg for me during my retirement. I felt that it would be a little bit of a nice investment, if I needed that money down the road. I received two (In Audible) and a number of my friends Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 along with me, had their properties merged to their homes. I then went to the Town Hall as to inquire about unmerging the property. They informed me to obtain a lawyer, have a survey done and appear for an appeal hearing. There will be a time period in which this could be done and if not done then, it could not be done in the future. This situation also implied to Mr. Horton's land. He decided after speaking with lawyer not to go with it because he liked being private. He also went through -- I can't remember what it was. If this unmerging is approved by the Town, when Mr. Horton's son retires, he wants to retire and move into the fathers house and Audrey, the daughter, will build a small retirement home on the unmerged property. Now, this is a letter that was written in the past before and (In Audible). Of chouse Audrey mentioned this morning that it is going to be a modest home. This was written yesterday. This is my worry and my concerns. The word small. This means the price of my home and my Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 piece of property will decrease in value. In a few years, I plan on moving into an assisted living program and will need the financial money to do it. It will almost be Peconic Landing. This is a great concern for me and my reason for being in court today. It is all about financial. So that is my talking about this right now. And you may have this -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. I would be happy to take it. Thank you. MEMBER HORNING: Leslie, can we ask her to identify on the tax map -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. MS. LANGEMYR: I am right next to it. I am on Oak. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am looking at 13. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lot 137 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. MS. LANGEMYR: (In Audible.) It's a nice home. (Far away from the microphone.) MS. LANGEMYR: I could not do it down the road. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not accurate. MS. LANGEMYR: Well, maybe at that time. THE SPEAKER: (In Audible). (Far away from the microphone.} CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand, there has been lots of issues with this code. Everyone who has this, still receives two different bills and it has created a lot of confusion. We are here to unconfuse people. MS. LANGEMYR: financial. I am here because of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Understand. The court did not see that as an economic hardship. They did that because they thought, well, your property is 12,000 square feet and as a result of a merger, it's 24,000 square feet and have a house on it. It is not considered a hardship because you are still going to have some value in the increase size of that lot. Even though they are not two separate houses on them and there is not two houses on them, it is Zoning Board of Appeals September t, 2011 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 greater equity with twice the size. MS. LANGEMYR: time if was a property that is (In Audible) -- at appraised at $270,000.00. the name. MS. HORTON: I am Audrey Horton and just want to clarify a couple of things that were brought up. One thing is the difference between my neighbors home and my fathers home. My fathers home is clear on keeping on the other part separate. And when you drove by, you noticed that the house and the lawn was built like there is a line down the middle of it. And then there is the yard, the woods that was kept totally untouched, really. That is a big difference. He was always very mindful of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We get the just. We are going to have to move on. MR. LARK: (In Audible) in connection with a different application but the same result of an unmerged lot. So there is a different criteria that was there then there is today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 69 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the garage -- the setback of the property line, because his intention was always to subdivide it. And in Nick's case, the house is built in the center of those lots and Paul Gairhold, the guy that built it originally, had always intended for that to become one space with one house. So for Nick's, you would have to tare down and built little tiny houses. It is a different scenario. And other thing is, in concern for Nick's view, the house has tiny windows that face the street. He has huge, like 6 foot glass windows, that looks out over his water views. So we feel, that from his view, he can't see either of these houses. But it is not like it would be in his view. He has a spectacular view. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In the interest of time, I would like to see if there is anyone else in the audience that really feel that they need to address this? Spend another couple of minutes on this application, otherwise, I think the record shall reflect a number of points of view that will be carefully reviewed by this Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Board. Is there anyone else that would like to address this Board? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. (See Minutes for Resolution.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to make a motion to recess for three minutes or SO. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (Whereupon, a recess was taken at this time.) ******************************************* HEARING #6496 - NICHOLAS CUTRONE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, the next application before us is for Nicholas Cutrone. That is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's May 31, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for as built deck and proposed addition at; 1) as built deck at less than 100 foot setback from top of the bluff, 2) proposed addition at less than 100 foot setback from top of the bluff, located at: 786 Bailie Beach Road, adjacent to Long Island Sound. Please proceed. MR. GERACE: Good morning. My name is Peter Gerace, G-E-R-A-C-E. I am the architect retained by Mr. And Mrs. Cutrone. They are present here today. My address is 792 Connequot Avenue, Islip Terrace, New York 11752. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a copy of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Review indicating the as built deck as inconsistent with the LWRP. Do you have a copy of that? MR. GERACE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We also have a copy for local determination from Suffolk County, which indicates that they have no interest in this application. Please proceed. MR. GERACE: I have been retained by Mr. And Mrs. Cutrone, who have been using the residence as a summer part-time home for the past 11 years, I believe. And Mr. And Mrs. Cutrone have been using this as a summer home and with retirement they are going to be using it as a permanent home eventually. So they have asked me to do a design for an expansion kitchen and dining room area. And also add a bedroom upstairs and a deck. And in the process, we were told that the deck at the rear of the house was built without permit. It was existing when Mr. And Mrs. Cutrone bought Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the property. To their knowledge, the deck might had been there for about 30 years. I guess, I will address the deck first because that might not have been addressed too much in my application. The deck has been there a long time. I have some photographs with my application, you can see that the landscaped around the deck is very old. It has been there a long time. There is some vigorous planting there. We do understand that it is in the coastal (In Audible) line. The feeling from my side and Mr. And Mrs. Cutrone, if we were told to remove the deck, I think there would be a lot more damage then actually leaving it their. And I do have the tax assessors card, that I had obtained from the Assessor's Office and it does show the being there when Mr. And Mrs. Cutrone deck purchased the property. In regards to the addition, what we were trying to accomplish is just make the house more liveable. As it exist now, there is no dining room in the house now. They also wanted to make the kitchen bigger. It was always the intent of Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. And Mrs. Cutrone to design something that can fit within the character of the houses that are there. There requirement was that it not be as big as possible, that it just be comfortable. The addition was cited where it is because for several reasons. The existing kitchen was already on that side. More importantly, it is the flattest part of the property. Right now, there is a (In Audible) pear tree, that will have to unfortunately be cut down. To the east of that, there is also a hedge that has no visibility to the neighbor at all. There is no visible negative attributed to the addition. We are also proposing a deck on the front of the house. Some sort of deck is needed anyway. The front of the house, is about four foot above the natural grade. So there must have been something, in reference to the rear deck, to access the house. Also the construction will be located so that none of the gravel driveway area and the ornamental retaining walls that are shown the site plan will be disturbed. And you Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will also be including drainage structure to capture all of the runoff for the entire levels. Not just the addition. It is also important to note that the existing top of the bluff on the property is very mature and very stabilized and there appears to be no apparent problems. I think over time, what we are presenting, we are trying to be very sensitive. Mr. And Mrs. Cutrone love the house and the neighborhood and they don't want to do anything out of character other than to make it a little more comfortable to live in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: When did the Cutrone's purchase the parcel? MR. GERACE: In 2000. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I would talk about the deck that is in Erosion Zone. Can you find out previous owner when that deck was MS. ANDALORO: Ken, I don't is relevant. It was built without like to the Coastal from the built? know that the permit. Unfortunately, the way the law would look at it, it may need a permit. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GERACE: We understand that. MS. ANDALORO: I believe if it is 20 years old, I believe it would have been built after the Coastal Erosion Management Law was set up. So it didn't have a permit and it doesn't really matter. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. I have no further questions at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: How is the permitting process going? Do you need to involve the Trustees? MR. GERACE: Yes, we have already made an application to the Board of Trustees. I was told last week, when I originally did the variance application, the Board of Trustees, they wouldn't accept an application until a decision was made here. If anything changes, we would have to change the application. I was called last week to do the Board of Trustees application, because I guess they felt it was important the Zoning Board and the Board of Trustees talked about the project. So I agreed to do that. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is correct. Our offices contacted them and they were aware of the project. Just so you are aware, you will need to get a Coastal Erosion Permit from the Trustees. You will also need to get a Chapter 275 permit, which is for the setback from the Trustees. So you will have to get two different permits from them relative to the deck and they will also examine, the proposed nonconforming setback for the addition at the same time. You also, when you bought the house, there is a 1968 ZBA approval for a 280A access area from the road. So we will not be addressing that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, we are going to be addressing it. It needs to be updated. That does not mean that the access is approved at this time. It is only approved by the basis of that 1978 decision. It needs to be updated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sir, would you come up and address the Board. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sir, if you are the owner of the property, or one of the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 78 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 owners -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Wait a minute. Just let him -- MR. CUTRONE: My name is Nick Cutrone, C-U-T-R-O-N-E. The dirt road is owned by Mr. Catalino. When we bought the property, at the end of the dirt road, they -- we found out that he owned it. Any time anything, has to be done with the road, we all do it together. I understand what you are saying because my neighbor Lucy Cutler was told that an ambulance or fire truck will not go down that road. I said, do what you got to do. Tell me my share. So you have four different families there. There is always one or two -- you know, I will tell them now, that it has to be widen. You know, I have no problem with it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Widen and clear. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We had a heck of a time getting in there to do a site inspection. MR. CUTRONE: That was you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That driveway Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 needs to addressed. MR. CUTRONE: I will tell my neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you a question, are you on the Trustee's calendar? MR. CUTRONE: September 21st. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: More questions? MEMBER HORNING: On your site plan, and the Notice of Disapproval, on the site plan right now, I am not talking about the ocean side or the Sound side. But the access to the structure from the driveway and in the photos that you have submitted, you can't really see it. You have a deck there now of sorts -- MR. GERACE: Right. MEMBER HORNING: Is that the area that you are proposing to tare down? MR. GERACE: Yes, that will come out in that general location. MEMBER HORNING: In the general location or the same location? MR. GERACE: In the same location. It might vary a foot or two. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER HORNING: Exactly the same location. MR. GERACE: The intent again, was to do something very minor in the property. We made minor adjustments. The thought was not to create more work. We are trying to work with what is there. MEMBER HORNING: We are more concerned about the existing deck on the waterside and the addition, which doesn't meet the setback from the bluff but on the driveway side of that new addition, you are proposing a deck that goes all the way across the face of the new addition; is that correct? MR. GERACE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I am having our Board secretary call our office because you are on the Trustee's calendar for September, what I am going to propose is that we adjourn this hearing to October. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So that we could find out what happens at the Trustees meeting in September. That way we can continue with this hearing until the date of October 6th. And I am just checking what our calendar looks like. So hearing no further comments, I am going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to October 6th at 1:00 o'clock. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6499 - JOHN AND ALEXANDRA KAPETANOS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our next application is for John and Alexandra Kapetanos. Request for variance from Article XXIII Code Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 22, 2010, updated June 13, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 82 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling at; 1) front yard setback of less than the code required 35 feet, 2) total side yard setbacks of less than the code required 25 feet, 3) lot coverage of more than the code required 20%, located at: 455 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. State your name for the record? MR. DELUCA: My name is James Deluca. I am here on behalf of the applicant. Basically I am here today to discuss the proposed additions for the existing single family dwelling. They have been shown on the site plan and survey that I have given. If you would be so kind to look at the survey that I have supplied to you. You will note that I have an addition in th rear, that is already existing, kitchen and bedroom area now, and what we want to do, in the drawings provided to you, we wanted to extend the existing bedrooms that are upstairs and further that existing rear one-story addition. And basically that is Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just to enlarge those existing bedrooms. The second floor bedrooms are very tiny and they just wanted to extend the bedrooms over that area. And the front deck, if you look again at the proposed site plan, we would like to add a walkout deck. It's actually a porch-deck. It is not enclosed. It is not enclosed on the top and it's not enclosed on the bottom. It is going to be held up by four columns. And if you take a look at the photographs that were given to you, especially one photograph, that shows the next doors neighbors property to the left and the proposed area where the deck would go. And as I heard before the applicant before me, that you's do a site visit. If you noticed in your site visit, almost every one on that street, especially going to the west, has all these front porches for their viewing. So the owners bought this property about two years ago. So they would like to put a similar deck in the front. Now on the drawing, now I must admit, I did these sketches and I as looking at them, and I found an error on Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 one. And if I would be so kind to just point it out to you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. MR. DELUCA: Basically this ruling actually goes Audible). (Stepped back to the house. (In away from the microphone.) So MR. DELUCA: So they could walk out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are they identical elevations to the neighbors? MR. DELUCA: the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yeah, they are basically The same setback too. MR. DELUCA: Yeah, almost identical. Basically to put a table and a couple of chairs out there. It is just not wide enough. It is for them to go out there and sit out there and have a view. If you look at the rear photograph and the sketches that were given, it's to saddle over the existing kitchen and bedroom area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The current lot percentage is 21%. It's already 1% over. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 85 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. DELUCA: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you want to increase it by 2.9% more. That is strictly for the porch. MR. DELUCA: Right. It has no affect on it. I wanted to be perfectly straight up front, I mean, it is not touching the ground. If you look at the envelope itself, it doesn't reach the -- not physically on the ground but up in the air. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we are looking at a front yard setback of 31 feet. Right now it is a conforming side yard. MR. DELUCA: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the lot coverage looks like it is proposed at 23.9%. Removal of the shed, you can get rid of that variance. MR. DELUCA: Like everyone else, they have stuff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that a one car garage or two car garage? MR. DELUCA: It is a tight two car garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have no Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 86 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 further questions. Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have any particular questions. I know the area very well. I have been there a thousand times. No particular -- if you could shrink the lot coverage a little bit, that would be greatly appreciated. That is my part. That is the only comment that I will make. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They would have to reduce the width of the proposed porch. MR. DELUCA: You know, I told them, they wanted a little bit more. I said, it's going to be out of character. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is 6 doable? MR. DELUCA: Well, anything is doable. It just -- when you walk out the front, it looks {In Audible) it would be down to four feet. And you walk out, you would only 4 feet to walk out onto. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lots of them are like that. There is a lot of nonconforming lot coverage in this area. MR. DELUCA: I know. There is so much hilly areas. There's tough terrain. It's a Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tough neighborhood. MEMBER HORNING: I have two need to have a variance? MR. DELUCA: Well, you would need a variance because it is almost in line with what I propose. That house was redone not to long ago. And that house and the house to left is larger than this one. Extremely larger. The one to the east is a three story house with three decks. This is the small fish in the big pond there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is set back substantially more. MR. DELUCA: The ones to the west are very similar to what we are proposing here. As a matter of fact, if you go to the applicants side of the street, you have questions. Can we research other variances on the other side of that street and in the immediate neighborhood? I mean, maybe this fellow has a nice idea, he has a nice photo looking west and you can clearly see the neighbors porch with the second floor deck on there. Did that person, was that neighbor ever an applicant here? Did he Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the north side, some of closer. MEMBER HORNING: assess the character of is if there were variances MR. DELUCA: If saw, they are all very CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: any questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: have those are even The way that we the neighborhood, you went down and similar. Ken, do you Nope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. (See Minutes for Resolution.) Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEARING #6500 - MICHAEL PHILLIPS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application is for Michael Phillips, #6500. Request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's June 16, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to demolish and construct a new dwelling and accessory in-ground swimming pool at; 1) less than 100 foot setback from the top of the bluff for the dwelling and accessory swimming pool, located at: 1000 Sound Drive, adjacent to Long Island Sound, in Greenport. MR. PHILLIPS: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. I am here on behalf of the applicant, Michael Phillips, who is also here in the audience. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just want the Board to know that we were handed up by Rob, some aerial views of the subject property that I will pass back and forth to look at. And that our Board secretary has just handed the applicants agent, a copy of Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Soil and Water evaluation. A copy of the LWRP review and a copy of Suffolk County for local determination. MR. HERRMANN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We just got those ourselves. Okay, Rob. MR. HERRMANN: This parcel is located at 1000 Sound Drive. There exist on the property now, a single-family dwelling, an inground swimming pool, which are legally recognized by the Town. They have Certificate of Occupancy's and compliance. Mr. Phillips wants to use his property for many of th was e same reasons as others, and this property in particular has a swimming pool in the appropriate rear yard. We are here today for what I would hope Board ultimately agree, a variance application, to the extent that the proposed site development proposes substantial improvement to the existing the what is on the property. Now, the swimming pool, it should be noted, that it is 37 feet from the crest of the bluff. It is in perfectly good condition and could be Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 left in place where it is. The dwelling could also be renovated in place. Mr. Phillips has considered that but ideally he is here today, because he would like to construct a new dwelling. One with a smaller footprint but that would have two stories to really maximize the view of the Sound and meet his families needs. The design is (In Audible) parcel is that not only are the existing structures located close to the bluff, but on the next developed lot to the west, you can see aerials that I have handed up and that is the parcel that is improved with a good size dwelling that is located about 35 to 40 feet from the bluff. And also a swimming pool, about 25 to 30 feet from the bluff. A new house on this parcel, could only be located so much closer to the road or the views of the Sound to the west, would be completely lost behind those structures, which of course would defeat buying a good piece of property with a view in the first place. So the plan that we have come with today is to construct a new dwelling with Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 much smaller footprint. It would be about 700 square feet smaller than the buildable footprint of the first house. Taking the total printable coverage of 3200 square feet down to about 2500 square feet and change. About a 20% decrease in the footprint of the dwelling. Also taking the dwelling farther from the bluff, to a proposed setback of 82 feet and change compared to the 65 foot setback to the existing house. Based on the design, that would also take the house that is almost entirely located within that 100 foot setback, remove it, and construct a house with a house that is actually behind the cress of the bluff, but at a minimum distance of 82 feet. This plan it would not only improve the bluff setback and also produce the coverage of the bluff setback, of which I have just stated, it would also totally eliminate two existing nonconformity's on the parcel. That the side yards are 10 feet and 21 feet. And the new dwelling would meet the requirements of 15 and 35 minimum and side yard setback Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 required in the R40 District. Now, in addition to those improvements, to sweeten the plan, so to speak, Mr. Phillips would be willing to take on the additional expense, to remove the existing swimming pool and to construct a new pool, similar to the house, the swimming pool would have a smaller footprint of the existing pool. That would be 50 or square feet (In Audible) from the existing 37 foot and change setback to the pool and put the pool at 65 feet. So the proposed swimming pool would be entirely landward of where the swimming pool is now. So the net result of this change in the site layout would be a combination of the two side yards setbacks. It would be a substantial reduction in the nonconformity with the two bluff setbacks. And it would also create an overall reduction in lot coverage. Now, we don't have a problem with lot coverage here but based on the reduction and the size and footprint of the structures, we would reduce lot coverage by more than 3% from 17% to about 13.8%. Not the kind of the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reductions in plan that we often see in front of the Board. Although we are not here for any coverage relief, we hope that the Board will take that into consideration. This would put the nearest structure to the bluff, the proposed swimming pool at the same distance from the bluff as the Manos pool, which is located 8 properties to the west. It was approved for a 65 foot setback. I believe from this Board in 2005, pursuant to decision #5523 an %5730. And of course it would place the pool substantially further from the bluff than the immediately adjacent pool to the west. It would also put the house as close to the road as we could possibly put it without effectively placing it behind the next house to the west, where the view shed here would be lost. So not only is it our position that we are seeking the minimum relief necessary and in a way that it would not cause any detriment to the property, but in a way of doing the best that we can without causing detriment to ourselves. With respect to the physical and Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 environmental conditions of the property, which again, is always something that the Board listed in seeing in side front lot. Respectively, it is also characterized by a lawn that extend to the cress of the bluff and (In Audible) sanitary system located a little more than 100 feet from the bluff and with no drainage to collet roof runoff. The project would seek to remove those structures and to construct a smaller swimming pool and smaller dwelling located farther from the bluff. To install a drainage system of leaders, gutters and dry wells, to capture and recharge roof runoff. Install an upgraded Health Department sanitary system that is located more than 150 feet from the bluff and to establish a 15 foot wide planted buffer along the bluff in replace of the existing lawn. I would mention, that I was just handed this LWRP letter, which recommends that the Board find it consistent with the LWRP but based on a condition that the buffer would be a landscaped buffer and enlarged to meet with the Coastal Erosion Hazard line. So it is Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fairly similar therefore the design measures provide the to what we have proposed. So and the (In Audible) following benefits to the property. decreased by over 700 square feet approximately 3% of buildable lot The lot coverage will be or coverage. The wetlands and bluff setbacks would be increased and the minimal (In Audible) setback would be increased by almost 28 feet. For the swimming pool, a nearly 75% increase in the bluff setback. The onsite septic treatment would be improved and located farther from the surface waters and bluff through upgrade and relocation of that system. The proposed drainage system would capture and recharge drainage runoff to reduce water runoff to the surface. And the quantity and quality of surface water runoff to the bluff would be mitigated to the establishment from the landscaped buffer that would be proposed at about 1500 square feet, which would be pursuant to the LWRP's recommendation and would serve as both a sink and filter for contaminants. And it would also reduce (In Audible) Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pesticides and other such chemicals. That is my presentation of the project, I would be happy to answer them. Again, Mr. Phillips is also here. I should note, that we have a nonjurisdiction letter from the DEC that file. CHAIRPERSON you the you should have with the WEISMAN: Thank you. Do know what the water is going to be in swimming pool? Water, chlorinated, salt water -- MR. HERRMANN: We just discussed that prior to the hearing and he would consider using, an alternative to a chlorinated system, which I think he was looking into anyway. So if the Board wanted to stipulate that or us, we would be happy to do so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, Soil and Water's recommendation was that it was chlorinated and that it be dechlorinated -- MR. HERRMANN: Right. It is a trend that we are seeing increase. I have spent the last few days swimming in a pool that was chlorinated and one that was not, and using a salt water system -- Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MR. HERRMANN: difference of your eyes eight hours to swimming MR. PHILLIPS: If chlorine, and you use a then a dry well is not required? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You Much nicer. Yes. It was a hurting for almost in the bay. you take out the salt water system, still need the dry well. MR. PHILLIPS: That makes it an easy decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please state your name for the record? MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry, Michael Phillips. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we just establish the size of the existing swimming pool first? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. The existing swimming pool is -- well, this is going to decimal points, but according to the surveyor, 669.45 square feet and the proposed pool at 616 square feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The proposed pool a Lazy L pool, does that pool go back to Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 99 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the house? MR. HERRMANN: It does. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The existing swimming pool is a rectangular -- MR. HERRMANN: Rectangular liner pool. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The proposed pool a gunite pool? MR. HERRMANN: No, it is a liner also. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the project in general has great merit. I personally would like to see a pool back for an additional 5 feet for a total of 70 feet, okay? And that is just my opinion. MR. HERRMANN: Now, one issue Gerry, and this is something that went into the design. The way the pool stands right now, it is precisely in the rear yard. If we brought the pool closer to the road, then I wonder if part of that would become in a side yard. I was just here about a month or two ago for Henson, where a pool was proposed in a side yard. So doing so would not be widely inconsistent but one of the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reasons that we went with the 65 feet, is that we were following that decision and trying to keep that swimming pool from being in a nonconforming. Now, I don't want to speak for Mr. Phillips prematurely, but I think 5 feet would be to get this approval, would be okay. I just want to be careful about creating a variance in trying to get a few feet relief. So we would leave that in the Board's hands. MR. PHILLIPS: I think by moving it 5 feet, it would bring it closer to the house and make it much tighter. I don't think I could get around from the house to the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you something, it would appear that the bluff is farther away -- MR. HERRMANN: It does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is not shown on the survey, 65 is -- MR. PHILLIPS: (In Audible). (Far away from the microphone.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I want to know what would be the farthest. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 20tl 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HERRMANN: Just give me one second. I think you are picking up about 3 or 4 feet per 10 feet to the west. So you are -- if the pool is 28 feet, the setback is -- are going on the west corner, is closer to about 90 feet on that side. And in the center of the pool, straight out, you are about 80 feet. You start to lose that minimum setback as you move to the east. So that as you are getting to the are the 65 most easterly side of the pool, you getting 70 feet and then finally to at the minimum corner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: wanted the record to reflect 65 feet is not the entire pool -- MR. HERRMANN: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: nonconforming. MR. HERRMANN: And in that makes it a little more different I guess I that the length of the just Is not regard, than the decision, where the whole pool is -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Totally nonconforming. it Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HERRMANN: Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is the reason why I asked the question, a liner as opposed to gunite. (In Audible). MR. PHILLIPS: In so many different reasons, we came up with this particular setback. If I come further, there is a that is there. It moves It starts mainly, please you lose, for probably 13 to are at the really nice garden the driveway into the garden. shifting the house here. And don't laugh at this, but every 5 feet, you are losing 15 degrees of Sound view. So we point losing some view already. MR. HERRMANN: One of the issues with the pool, we could just leave the pool alone. What I am trying to do is to create really a greater improvement for the whole property. The pool is really fine. We are really trying to improve the site, by picking up a pool where it really is and almost doubling its setback. I wanted to come in with a plan with something that we have worked with and that this was the best way and what we can do. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think you have cited previous precedents in the neighborhood. That you have also cited, that the pool shifts, from 70 to 80 than to 65. And you are also talking about compromising the view shed, if the dwelling was -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think that you can use that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am just stating it. MR. HERRMANN: I am hoping that the Board sees that this swimming pool is fine where it is. And that the applicant is willing to pick it up and build at a new, 65 feet from the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: Rob, on the existing pool, the best I could figure out, it was built approximately 1982. MR. HERRMANN: I don't know when it was built. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The original setback went into about 1985. MEMBER HORNING: My question came up, Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the neighbors to the immediate west, when that pool got put in -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am going to say that that house was totally reconstructed in place and in kind (In Audible) but that the house next to it, which is a huge dutch colonial, we denied the pool. MR. HERRMANN: George, the oldest decision that I can find with respect to setbacks was one that was granted to Nick Foapolous at Section 33, Block 1 Lot 16, where the Board granted a variance to put the swimming pool 30 feet from the bay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What was the date on that, Rob? MR. HERRMANN: That was May 22, 1986. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was a different section of the code at that time. MR. HERRMANN: The one that seemed most relevant to me was the Manos application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I am just looking at the clock. MEMBER HORNING: I just want to make one more comment, your proposed front yard Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 setback is well over 100 feet and what you are trying to do is take advantage, as you say, your view of the sound, and again, are job is to try and get you to push everything away from the bluff as much as possible. So even 5 feet, is significant in that regard. MR. PHILLIPS: If you don't mind, the main reason why I bought this lot was because of the sunset. As the sun sets the house block (In Audible) there were a lot of things that I needed to take into consideration. Where the house is now, beautiful sunset. Literally by 5 feet, it diminishes it dramatically. That is one of the reason why I put my life savings into this piece of property was because of the sunset. So Rob has convinced me to get this as far as I possibly can. That is why I came up with this proposal, to make it all better around. To me the sunset, that is why I paid the money for it. MEMBER HORNING: The sunset does change dramatically through the course the year. It's not always in the same of Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 place. best. months, further really MR. PHILLIPS: June 21st is the As you start moving into the summer it starts moving further and south. And that is where that house starts to impede that view. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any more questions from the Board? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: in the audience that would this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: further comments, Is there anyone like to address Hearing no I will make a motion to close date. this hearing and reserve to a later MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER GOEHRINGER: HORNING: SCHNEIDER: Second. Ail in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. (See Minutes for Resolution.) Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEARING #6503 - MICHAEL GREENLY MARKETING PENSION PLAN. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before us is for Michael Greenly Marketing Pension Plan. Request for variance under Article II Section 280-9 and the Building Inspector's July 6, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for Lot Recognition, which states, "the identical lot was created by deeed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on or before June 30, 1983 and the lot conformed to the minimum lot size set forth in Bulk Schedule AA as of date of lot creation." 1) lot depth is less than the required 175 feet; located at: 1210 Cedar Birch Road, Orient. MS. DOTY: Deborah Doty for the applicant. We are requesting a variance for a depth of 175 feet on a lot that was created in 1974, which is no longer recognized under the Town Code by reason of a section of the code that was enacted eight months prior to when my clients Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 purchased the property. I know you all have been out there. It is a small private road. Ail of the lots on that road, with the exception of the subject parcel and the one immediately to the south, are 150 feet in depth. of a large And this lot was created as a result split between two co-owners of the lot and the lot is in excess of 44,000 square feet and as I said, it's depth is only 158.5 feet. It is the only vacant lot on that part -- well, on Cedar Birch Road. There is an existing variance for the lot immediately to the north of this, which shares a 150 foot depth and the variance, Mr. Goehringer, you signed it in 1982. I am sure you remember. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have recollection when I wrote it. It getting dusky and it was very, very Audible). I remember being here. great was just (In MS. DOTY: I have to confess, when I pulled up the various applications, and saw that Dick Lark had done it. And I almost submitted his variance application with mine. In many ways, it is the same issue. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ail of a sudden is not recognizable. We can't get a building permit on it because of the Town Code. In our instance, because 280-9B, we can't do anything. As I told you, it is the only vacant lot. We are asking for an insubstantial variance of 16.5 feet. That is about 9 1/2%. Whereas, all the other lots, are more than 14% off on that depth. We can't do anything. We have a private parcel on the left and we have a private road on the east. We can't expand this at all. So we are asking the Board to grant 158.5 feet on this lot. That is it for right now. CHAIR?ERSON WEISMAN: Let me see if the Board has any questions. This is pretty straight forward. Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: None whatsoever. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just have to say, I think you calculated it wrong. It's 9.4%. before MS. DOTY: I missed the two words it, less than, and I don't have my Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reading glasses on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: reserve decision. Second. Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. (See Minutes for Resolution.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will make a motion to take a five minute recess. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Whereupon, a recess was taken at this time.) ******************************************* -BRIAN GLENN (CV) FOR HEARING %6492 & #6493 WILLIAM BERGRATH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Brian Glenn for William Bergrath, #6492. Since we have two applications here, we also have an application #6493, which is for a variance application. The other one is for a Special Exception Permit. And I am going to read both legal notices and open up both of these at the same time. So we can address all of these at once. #6492, Request for variance from code Notice of Disapproval stating that the proposed use on this parcel in the AC Zone is not permitted and exceeds the code permitted number of uses per the bulk train horses, and the Building Inspector's February 14, 2011, updated June 28, 2011 Section 280-13 and 280-14, based on an application for building permit to operate a riding academy and keep, breed, raise and Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 schedule; located Southold. That is the variance. The 1375 Ackerly Pond Lane, the first application for Special Exception is for %6493, is a request for Special Exception under Article III, Section 280-13B(12) for equestrian stables and riding academy, located 1375 Please state record? MR. ANDERSON: Ackerly Pond Lane, Southold. your name for the Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental, for Mr. Glenn. He is a contact vendee for this property. The property is owned by Mr. Bergrath, William Bergrath. Mr. Bergrath is here today, as well as several (In Audible). This is -- it is important to understand what we have today. Today we have a horse farm and we have single family dwelling on this property. The horse farm, I am told is traditionally accommodates as many as 25 horses. And all things relating to a horse farm including keeping, training, breeding, have occurred on this property for as long as -- for as many years as we can count. So the use is for a horse farm and single Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 family dwelling. What we are applying for here today is to continue to still use, to have a horse farm and have single family dwelling. The horse farm itself, should be used an upgrade as to what is there. And by that, what I mean, we would be constructing a farm and constructing and indoor arena. The horse farm will accommodate 13 horses, three of which are owned by the Glenn's. So there is 10 other horses that are not owned by the Glenn's. The Glenn's will reside in the single family dwelling. They will be owners, operators and residents all on the same property. The ban -- there is also an indoor riding arena, which is attached to the barn. That barn and riding arena will (In Audible) southerly side lot line by 40 feet, where 25 feet is required. There are no dimensional variances requested here. There are no coverage related variances that are requested here. There are no type related variances that are requested here. It seems that because of the construction that is going on here, we are Special Exception, and a variance to reaffirm the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 uses that are already existing on this property. It is important to know that the property will be completely refenced. It is important to note, that as many as 25 horses have been reduced to about 12 now, will be permanently reduced to 13. The intensity of the farm use actually decreases. It is important to note that the house keeping aspect of it, is (In Audible) weekly basis. So some of the concerns that is relating to the impacts of the other horse farm are built and addressed in this proposal. We also, as you know, filed an application with the Planning Board. And I was handed a series of letters moments ago with very fine compliment, by Ms. Toth, and we have had a chance to read those. There is one from the Planning Board that is dated August 12, 2011, which reads that parcel was created and approved by the Planning Board. That they were on site at the that time. A condition (In Audible) approval, a covenant was filed restricting this parcel to an agricultural use. Under this covenant, agricultural buildings are Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 allowed and necessary by the Planning Board to conduct agricultural use. The horse training is considered agricultural by the New York State agricultural and Markets Law. The Planning Board has determined that the buildings are necessary. So that is a very powerful statement. And that tracks the language of the covenant that was submitted in this application, which tells you that the permitted uses includes operations encompassing livestock and livestock products, including cattle, sheep, goats, horses and poultry. So the Planning Board is telling us that our application is reasonable, necessary and that they go on to say the following, that the Planning Board supports the granting of the area variance. The parcel was used as a horse farm when the residence was created at it's current size of 10 acres. In addition, the three uses defined in the code are all compatible. Two of them are interrelated. The Special Exception of the stable riding academy include activity described in the permitted use, "keeping, Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 breeding, raising, and training of horses." The Planning Board also found that the application be consistent with the Town's goals of promoting agriculture. So that is certainly very important letter that I trust you will take notice of. The other thing that you may not know is while this property was initially in contract, the things that we did, we made one of applications to the Suffolk County Legislature, for (In Audible) certified agricultural district. You should be aware that the legislature did in fact vote to approve this parcels inclusion to a certified agricultural district and my understanding that before the State legislature (In Audible). So this is meets all and every definition of agriculture. Both expresses in the covenant created the parcel. As well as within the broader Agricultural and Markets Law. And as I said, the uses that we are talking about today, are the same uses that we are talking about tomorrow. The difference is, we will have a barn, stable and indoor Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 riding arena. The property, will be re-fenced, to prevent escapes, which I understand was alleged, a problem in the past. We also have the County of Suffolk, views this application as a local determination. That is now in your file jacket and the Planning Board has designated this (In Audible) action. We then have two letters of objection. The first letter is was written by Mary Bercamore Peters, when you go through this letter, this letter speaks to the existing conditions. This is going to be an upgraded farm. Meaning re-fencing the area. Keeping it tighter, managing it more in a manner that would be more compatible with the neighbors that we had today. We are going to go through this point by point but this is what Letter #1 said. Letter #2, is written by Mr. And Mrs. Ward, generally I would say it is factually inaccurate from beginning to end. And careful read of that letter, will show inaccurate. It also has the same components of the first letter, that it speaks to existing farm use. The Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 escapes relating to maneuver, things of that manner, which are addressed in our application. The owner is here and can speak to the traditional use of the parcel, if you wish. That the actual variance that I understand it comes about a hyper technical reason that relates to construction (In Audible) permitted by covenant and also by the Planning Board. We have through a great deal of expense designing them. It is not expensive buildings. They were not inexpensive to design. We also have surveyors who have produced surveys which contain all the items that are necessary. Not to only this Board, but the Planning Board in order to act. We are trying to be sensitive to the neighborhood. We think it is a good project. With that, I am here to answer any questions. Like I said, the owners are here and there are other people here that would wish to speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I do want to clarify to what you said before the 25 foot setback to the property line. The building Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 119 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is to code at 40 feet of a setback and you are keeping livestock in a building, the code requires a 40 foot setback from the property line. And that is what you are proposing. The 25 is not the code -- MR. ANDERSON: That is were advised that it was the it at 40. CHAIRPERSON the record to conforming to the record to WEISMAN: reflect that. that setback. reflect that. couple of questions. I have chance to look at these neighbors also. I mean, fine, but we 25. And we set I just wanted So you are I just wanted I have a just had a letters from the they just arrived. I mean, because of the hurricane, things got delayed a little bit. Ail of us have done site inspections and so we are familiar with the property. I think one question might be that they are somewhat concern about the scale of the operation as proposed. MR. ANDERSON: The scale is reduced actually. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The proposed Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 120 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 arena and barn is fairly large. So I would like to ask you about, where was this size determined? How was it that this size was determined to be the size that you wanted to propose? MR. ANDERSON: I am going to have the contractor speak to that but I can tell you this. In my practice, I have done a number of horse farm applications. Not in this town but others, in Hampton's, where horses are much bigger than it is here. And we do indoor riding arenas, and I have found in my experience that 11,000 feet to be a minimal number. And the reason is, the horses need adequate room to move. And when you take the barn and you make it less than that, it become less desirable. Less usable and you are working against yourself, as a person against agricultural. So the ones that I have seen, they have been 11,000 feet. In Southampton, you can go as high as 20,000 feet for an indoor riding arena. That is because you need that kind of space. Lucille, if there is anything that you would like to add, please Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do. State your name. MS. SULLIVAN: My name is Lucille Sullivan. I will be living there with Brian and our children. The size of the arena, it is quite simple, in regulations of sizery, it is 66 feet wide by 198 feet long. So what you do is you train in the arena that is the size, and you will be competing in when you go to a horse show. The 70 x 200 is just a couple of feet extra wide because when you (In Audible) the size of the trusses, they came in 10 foot increments. just So we're just to train the horses, that I show. And it is that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: wanted the record above the minimum size I need for the discipline simple. Thank you. I to show how you came to that number. With plan, I know you have the Planning Board. MR. ANDERSON: we have been in front Board. regard to the site to get approval from approved Please understand that of the Planning CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: site plan? This is the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ANDERSON: It is not approved. We have had a comprehensive meeting on this and it went very well. And I don't anticipate any changes on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. Let me just state, I believe some concern has to do with -- there are two driveway accesses on this property. One is clearly for the dwelling. It is much smaller in scale. And the other one is shared easement or a common drive that a number of your neighbors, you being a potential neighbor, share. And I think there is some concern about increased traffic, the number of people that might be coming on the subject parcel as a result of the expansion of this permitted use into an arena. MR. ANDERSON: It is not an expansion of the use though. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a related use. That's permitted. I am not saying that this is not a permitted use but it does require more parking spaces and more people coming onto this property to ride. It's an arena. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ANDERSON: I don't think that is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then please correct the record. MR. ANDERSON: Right now, this farm traditionally provided for 25 horses. And there were 25 horses. That makes it 25 owners. 25 trucks, 25 cars, however you want to rationalize it. That was what traditionally existing on this property and we are here stating that that number goes to 13. Three of which horses, would be owned by the residence farmer. So you are really talking about 10. So you go from 25 to 10. That suggest a reduction in traffic. A reduction in parking and a reduction in impact. MEMBER HORNING: Sir, are you then saying that there is 25 horses there now? MR. ANDERSON: No. What I am saying that it has been traditionally been used for 25 horses. I asked the owner how many do we have today and they have 12. MEMBER HORNING: A month ago, how many horses were there? Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 said. come name. MR. ANDERSON: I don't know. 13 they MEMBER HORNING: 6 months ago? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to to the microphone. Please state your MR. BERGRATH: William Bergrath. I the owner of the farm. Six months ago, there was, probably 18 horses. At a year ago, there was 20. MEMBER HORNING: am drive? MR. BERGRATH: Yes, I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: clarify that you are a part MR. BERGRATN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: was that many horses there, do. I just want to of that access. And when there who came on the property? Obviously, you didn't own those many horses, you were boarding them? MR. BERGRATH: No. I was boarding them. Full boarders and rough boarders. Ok. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sir, before you leave, can you tell me if you have the legal right to use that common existing RCA Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rough boarders mean, they come and they take care of their horses twice a day themselves. The full boarders I took care of, as well as my own horses. People came and went. As a matter of fact, the Ward's and Peters were annoyed by my boarders going out the access driveway, so I had to -- I spoke to all my boarders and asked them not to use that driveway and use my personal driveway. And that is what they did. And that has been going on for two years, at least. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anybody else want to ask some questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You have rights to that other driveway. That is a separate driveway? MR. BERGRATH: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No other questions at this time. MR. BERGRATH: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: I have a question for the attorney. I think Leslie may have referred to it a little bit, but in the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 application, variance reason %3 that you submitted, you are referring to the amount of relief is not substantial, because and you go on to say something about 28.6% of the overall requirement. What are you talking about here? MR. ANDERSON: We are comparing the lot area, which is approximately 10 acres, which would be required to have a house and horse farm. And that difference is the number that you just stated. That refers you to the bulk schedule. From a use standpoint, the use today is the same use tomorrow. MEMBER HORNING: Are there three uses, one additional propose use? MR. ANDERSON: Well, they are so interrelated, it is difficult for me to cherry pick them. So for example, if you are going to train horses, raise horses, breed horses, that is three different uses. That would take the view that is all part and partial to have a horse farm, which is one use, it is a matter for this Board to consider and that is why we are here. That Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would be my position. seems to be covenant and MEMBER could you provide for Planning Board, as to think -- MR. ANDERSON: belonged here at all That is what they understand why we And that position supported by the underlying agricultural and markets. HORNING: Final question, us input from the how many uses they They didn't think we for an area variance. stated. They didn't were coming for that. And they take the view that a horse farm is a horse farm and anything occurring on horse farm is part of the horse farm. MEMBER HORNING: You are referring to a use variance -- MR. ANDERSON: No, I am not asking for a use variance. MEMBER HORNING: Does the Planning Board sense that there are two uses or there is three uses. MR. ANDERSON: There are two uses, in a sense. MEMBER HORNING: And can you get something in writing from them? Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ANDERSON: They said that in their letter, which you have in your file. This would be the August i2th letter. They are saying two of them, meaning two uses defined under the code, are compatible and two of them are interrelated. The two of them being the farm uses. MEMBER HORNING: So they are saying that there are three uses? MR. ANDERSON: NO, they are saying the uses to code are all compatible and two of them are interrelated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Maybe we can get clarification, but I am going to say that I understand this to mean -- the Building Inspector is here and if you need to ask him for clarification, perhaps you can get that. Why don't we just do that, instead of what I think it means. Can I just ask you to come to the podium, Mike and clarify for everybody, what this so called third use is? MR. VERITY: Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector, Town of Southold CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. I Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would like you to tell us how this Notice of Disapproval was written. MR. VERITY: The strict interpretation, which states that this is AC Zone, would require two acres for a house if you were to do this today. As was new, it would be two acres for the house. Ten acres for the horses and then two acres for the riding academy, if you want to break it down for strict interpretation of the code. That is the way that it would be viewed. In the strict in upkeeping of the horses, it is a permitted code. Section B it make the argument that it is two uses on the property. It is a single family dwelling. The riding academy and the keeping and the training is everything as one use. It's simple to say that but the strict interpretation and the way that it was written and broken down into 10, 10 and 2. use, in Section A of the you have the riding academy. Going back to Section A, you have the dwelling. That is why it can be broken down. You can also Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 201~ 130 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would have been a total of 14 -- MR. VERITY: Correct. You can say in that 10 acres, you can have the arena and all of it. That is common sense. Fortunately, the Building Department has to go black and white. We can't use the common sense approach. We have to allow you to go from the black and white. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, it is clear and I thank you for explaining that. MR. ANDERSON: I want to make one point and I thought I was clear before. There have always been riding lessons here. The notion of a riding academy, my view of that is something entirely different then what I think code says. So whether you want to call it a riding academy or riding lessons to me, it is a distinction without a difference. The important thing, there has always been riding lessons there. I also wanted to address this and Ms. Sullivan had picked up on it, is that Mr. Bergrath testified that there would be rough boarders there and that is people Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that come in and service their own horses twice a day. That is not part of this proposal. The horses boarded there will be entirely serviced by the Glenn's. There will be no rough boarders at this facility. MEMBER HORNING: Getting back to the 28.6% relief that you are suggesting for the bulk, is that derived from the potential need for 14 acres or 12 or what? MR. ANDERSON: 12 acres. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I see that there are several ways in which one can interpret that Notice of Disapproval and the Special Exception is straight forward. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, and I am glad that he is here. MR. VERITY: I think the property owner is looking for a clean change in title, if that is the way to property state it. Again, there is a couple of different ways that you can do this but the cleanest and the -- not the easiest but the cleanest way to handle it, is the way that they are attacking it right now. This is the best Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 132 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way to do it, instead of always questioning the existing uses on the property. As you know, I don't want to call it nonconforming but it's kind of a nonconforming setting. So there is no question, with your approval, after that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We are talking about the uses essentially being a horse farm and a dwelling on 10 acres and the definition of a horse farm includes riding lessons. MR. ANDERSON: What that does for us, gives the farmer more flexibility. VERITY: Again, at the end of the can always go back to what they Exception and it MR. day, they want to do with a Special they can carry on. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can take those two acres and slice it out but it's still layered. MR. VERITY: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And a loss of that Special Exception would certainly take a certain portion of this property away from these people and that is the reason Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 why -- anybody who takes this property, is forced to run it very professionally and based upon that Special Exception permit. Okay. And we will probably address that before we finish this hearing. Thank you. MR. VERITY: Yes. This again, is the is a framed building touches the right of carefully at smartest approach. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I MEMBER HORNING: I would a couple more to Mr. Anderson. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. MEMBER HORNING: Are there buildings now that are intruding property of anyone else or going property line, into the right of MR. ANDERSON: No. that way. your survey, ask -- like to ask Go ahead. any other upon the over the way? I'm sorry, there you will see If you look there is a slight overlap. But understand that that building needs to be removed. So we would be removing that and it says that on the survey. MEMBER HORNING: There is another one on here and it doesn't have a CO either, I Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 believe, it says the building can be removed or relocated and you haven't decided what you are doing with it. MR. ANDERSON: We are talking about this earlier, and we are going to take our cue from this Board. I am doing a horse farm application right now, known as Two Trees and it's in Bridgehampton on Scuttle Hill Road. I am going to say it's 120 acres and they have them divided into (In Audible) of various sizes. And in some of these paddocks, we would have these sheds. We cal them turn-ins. So that a horse can be turned into this turn-in temporarily. We argue, whether you agree with me or not, that that also are part and partial to the maintenance to a horse farm. When you are talking about an application like this or Two Trees, which I am currently working on right now (In Audible) run an operation and afford to be building an indoor arena and have a barn, that is being represented that these are show horses and it is being represented (In Audible) facade. Now, I am not know huge horse expert but any way you Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 135 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are expensive a turn-in. It's from a part the look at it, these are very horses. They were to have inefficient to have it set fence. Because you are bifurcating the path. So we may want to put it up against the fence. And remember, all these fences going to be redone. Both letters talk no escapes about escapes. There will be here. MEMBER HORNING: Will there be a gate to the access road? MR. ANDERSON: No, there wouldn't, we wouldn't be opposed to one, but with all the paddocks. MEMBER HORNING: Because everything would be fenced in. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bruce, I think the whole issue is MR. ANDERSON: Layering. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Layering. From a Special Exception point of view, even though it is a two acre situation, it encompasses the entire farm. MR. ANDERSON: Right. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Everything has to Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be squeaky clean under a Special Exception. So there are things that you have to have. In my opinion, you have to have a permit or a CO. How mindless the CO may be on a small building of this magnitude, you still need it. So everything needs to be perfect on a Special Exception. I mean, I don't care where it is relocated. As long as it is in a conforming location and the Building Inspector said, I will give you a CO for it. MR. ANDERSON: I will tell you this, I don't want to hold up a closing on a turn-in. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am not asking you to hold up a closing. I am just telling you that that is what has to be done under those situations. agree. CHAIRPERSON What we not site plan. farm. If this is operation, as you what I do want structures on the to make WEISMAN: I have to are really talking about is We are not experts in horse a legitimate part of your have described, fine, but sure is that the subject property, they Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have CO's. To say that they are legitimate structures. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. That is fine. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I speak to Ms. Sullivan for a second? How are you making out? you? MS. SULLIVAN: Fantastic, how are MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Good. Could you kindly explain to the Board the arena and this magnificent building that you have before us and I am pretty well aware of arenas. Can you explain to us, is this building heated in any way? MS. SULLIVAN: No. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you a few questions and you very simply tell me if I am write or wrong. The normal ground area in the arena is a composition of sand and what else? MS. SULLIVAN: What we are very seriously considering is sand and geo fabric and that is to reduce the concussion on their joints. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And of course it Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 allows them to operate in the winter time and that is one of the reasons why it is not heated and so on and so forth? MS. SULLIVAN: Right. And they have come out with dust free surfaces, actually that we just -- we were just looking at two weeks ago. It reduces the dust, the concussion from the horses joints. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is clearly stated that, as the owners, he has been asked to utilize his own driveway for the sole purpose of in and out of this right of way. Is that a particular preference with you? MS. SULLIVAN: It's We could understand the having concerns with extra would have no problem with not a preference. other three houses traffic. We doing maintenance on that shared part. The flow, I think works better as it is proposed here then to go along the house. But if there was damage to it, we have no problem doing the maintenance on it. We actually assumed that we would be doing the maintenance on it, as good neighbors. And the only other Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thing, we would only anticipate traffic, so that the people not understanding how I run my profession, would think when they see the word "riding academy." I have no intention of this being the type of place where there is 100's of lessons a week. I teach in support of the horses that I have in training, okay. For instance, I have a very good client who actually lives in Southold but lives oversees. And I have her horse in training. When she is here, she comes and take lessons on that horse. When she is not here, I ride it five days a week. I am actually going to be looking for a second horse for her. That is a typical client of mine. Where I ride the horse and she lessons. I know there has been concerns about teaching on the weekends. I teach on Saturday. I don't generally teach on Sunday. If I am not competing, I spend time with my neat, clean, here. the family. I really envision, tidy, high class operation that a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: With regard to use of that common driveway, what size Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 trucks or will there be any trucks coming and going? I just want to -- MS. SULLIVAN: As a horse owner, I drive a Ford F350. That is my means of transportation. And there will be a variety. As far as, big tractor trailers, once construction is done, that will at a minimum. What I do right now is order a truck load of shavings. It's 1300 bags at a time. My goal is to minimize the amount of traffic that there is. So that we minimize how often there are deliveries. I would prefer not to take time out of our schedule and have the wear and tare on our own property. This is a huge investment for us. I don't want to overburden it either. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand. These vehicles are not going to be parked on this driveway -- MS. SULLIVAN: Absolutely not. They are going to come up that driveway and on to our property and that is why we made the ten parking provision. You know, there is not going to be vehicles all over the place and they are certainly not going to park on Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the driveway. MEMBER HORNING: How much would you say a month do you have tractor trailers -- MS. SULLIVAN: I don't know that I would anticipate one a month. I would have to work out my business plan but half a dozen per year. Probably hay would be every other month. Shavings are going to be two to three times per year. So we have two big deliveries that require a tractor trailer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is working out very nicely. In your discretion and the way that the situation is. What in your particular opinion, is this riding academy aspect in the whole cabin of things that you are going to have on this piece of property? MS. SULLIVAN: The riding academy is considered the lessons. You know, I don't have an estimate in terms of revenue. I consider it supplemental to the training of horses. I myself, am a rider and a trainer. Lessons are necessary to develop potential clients because when you teach children and/or adults -- I generally teach a lot of Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 142 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 adults, they train on a horse that is not their own. If they train proficient enough, they generally want to own a horse. And is what fills these stalls. My plan is to have one. I generally teach my lessons privately. One at a time. So that when you hear riding academy, I know there are certain farms that teach large people and that requires a lot amount of of people to come and go. I have never taught people to ride that way. I have always taught on an individual basis. So I plan on continuing to do that. That is why I don't teach on Sunday's. People want to come and have a lesson, whether it is on their horse or a school horse. Other than that, it is going to be a lot of volume. I don't if I answered -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want explain it, so that you understand it. if this Board grants an area variance, one that you are requesting, that the Board, and under Special Exception and is my opinion, has full control of the riding aspects over this farm. And if not know to That the this Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 things were to come a rye, we would be able to hold a public hearing and take that Special Exception license permit away from you. We don't want to do that. In fact, I don't even want to think of it, but I just want you to be aware of it. MS. SULLIVAN: Well, I believe the reason we stand before is, is exactly what Mr. Verity said, we want to avoid a situation like that in the future. We want to have our clarification now. You know what ours are and we know what yours are, and then we move forward peacefully. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is correct. So in reality, if there was a problem using that right-of-way, and there was a problem using your driveway, you could create another driveway close to that one and use that driveway, if worse came to worse? MS. SULLIVAN: If worse came to worse. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In the interest of some recognition, we have other hearings scheduled for this afternoon. I see a number of people in the audience who Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 probably would like to address the Board. So I am going to ask the Board members to hold up on further questioning and see if there is anyone else in the audience that would like to come forward and address the Board. MR. PETERS: My name is John Peters. am one of the houses -- the first house as you come up the RCA driveway on the right hand side. I am going a few things. I have to take exception to a list of things. There isn't alleged horses getting loose. It is not alleged. The police have been notified. We have had horses run down to Ackerly Pond Lane. They have gotten down in front of our homes and eaten our beds. They have broken our sprinkler heads. We have called Billy hundreds of times because he doesn't live there. He lives someplace else. He has had his people in the middle of the night. During the day to get their horses off the property. There is a bigger issue here. Ail throughout -- first of all, I wasn't served. I didn't get a letter stating that today was happening. I went to I Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your Annex and spoke to them about it and copied your whole entire file. That is how I come about what I know. I am going to briefly go through a couple of things. Not only did I not get served, your Zoning Board members who are not sure that the package was sent out and was served was a complete package. When they looked at what was served out they said, he had to send out more than that. I said, I don't know. I haven't received anything. That is the second concern. First off -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To us. You don't point to anyone, sir. MR. PETERS: -- he seems like a nice guy. We are dying to have a good neighbor. We are dying. But the fact is, we do have a bad neighbor right now. We do have issues. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would like you to turn it around and make it a good neighbor. So lets turn -- MR. PETERS: We have a small building that is on our property. I have brought in John Ahlers, and a surveyor and I had it shown it to Mr. Bergrath. His comment was Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 to me as he walked away angry (In Audible) 30 feet and travels the width of the property. East and west -- if you look at the connection between Mr. Bergrath's driveway and our right of way, there is a little turn. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is going. MR. PETERS: Here is my point. We brought this to his attention and we asked him to mend his fences and he didn't. He said (In Audible). With no concern to the neighbors. He built that barn right in front of my driveway. We didn't ask him to tell people to use a different driveway. We told him to stop using ours. Quit parking in our lawn. Don't park on the right-of-way. Don't park on the corner. It wasn't a mater of them don't use the road. It was a matter of where they were parking. With horse trailers, with hay and attachments onto their vehicle. For the covenants and restrictions, (In Audible that is 4I. Here is private road on Ackerly Pond, I have the minutes from the original meeting with Pamela Hunt that states there Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is never to be access from one onto Ackerly Pond Lane. In the covenants and restrictions, Section 6, also mentions that that road is not supposed to exist. We have an ongoing pattern here of the present owner doing what he wants and when he wants and being a terrible neighbor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't mean in any way to be short or cut you off from anything but they are our concerns as well. That is why we have public hearings, so all interested parties can be heard. However, it seems to be that a number of the problems you describe and you are justifiably upset about, have been addressed by the new applicant. Remember, this is a different situation. And I just think of some of the comments, A) there will be no blocking of the driveway, B) there will be minimum deliveries, C) there will be new fencing to make sure animals are contained on the subject property. They are all very legitimate concerns but it is our Boards intention that in going forth with looking at the request before Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 us, that all operations on this property will be conforming to what the law allows, permits and we will make sure that if is anything that we decide, that any structures on this property will be legal structures in the proper location. So I think, what I am glad that we have a chance to hear the prospective of the new owners because I am -- what I heard, indicating to me, what the impact and the use of the property will be done responsibly and with thoughtfulness and so on. We are really really running over the -- what I think Mr. Goehringer was talking about, when the Board makes a Special Exception permit, flea market, Bed and Breakfast, these are all permitted uses with Special Exception. The Board can condition those permits with limitations or expectations, lets say. Even if those are not there, if an applicant makes a request for a Special Exception permit, does not adhere to the standards set forth in that permit and complaints are made and enforcement is not acting with enough {In Audible) we can on our notion, Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 vote to rescind or further restrict a Special Exception. And I think it is important that all the neighbors understand that. Now having said that, I don't recall your name on the letter. MR. PETERS: John Peters. That is my wife. we like CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: do have a letter. MR. PETERS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: to do is have the applicants agent given the concerns have been to address those concerns. already been doing that may be something else. MR. ANDERSON: I Okay, fine. So What I would applicant to the an opportunity once heard by the Board I think you have already, but there are - we have contractual limitations with this project. So I would like to address it in writing. In other words, if we could have no problem addressing the concerns. The Board is obviously going to address the concerns by way of conditions to a Special Exception approval, should it grant one. We would say this, I Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 150 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 ~2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have a full airing of whatever the comments are today, leave it open for purposes of written submission. I think we can get to the same place in the most efficient way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you understand what was just suggested? MR. PETERS: Not exactly because I am sitting here wondering if the homeowners who have come with me to air their disagreement -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh, absolutely. I am not trying to stop anyone from -- MR. PETERS: And if we are running over, if we can have this adjourned to another day. I would be happy to take another day off and address my points because I think the most important thing is the quality of life and living and what we bought when we bought our home. At this point, because we are running late, I don't have the ability to express the difference between the covenants and restrictions as described previously are completely different when we look at it. When we talk about chicken, we are talking about eggs. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 When we talk about goats, we are talking about cheese. We talk about cattle, we are talking about meat and dairy. We cross the line when we go to riding lessons. They lead to riding shows. They lead to people coming in -- if I come to you in two years and want a lesson on a Sunday, you are going to look at me and go -- is that your big concern? They have to bring trucks in at certain time. They don't want to be a nit picker either. They have to run a business. But I also take exception. The quality of my life is going to change and so is my neighbors. I don't want to hear how much money it is going to cost. As much as I hate to look at that barn, I can still look straight through to my father-in-laws property who was the originator of the (In Audible) Association may years back. But ou know what, I am going to have 20,000 square feet of barn stables and riding academy directly out my front door. That impacts me. So what I would have liked, a buffer zone in between. They are not supposed to have that road on that property Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anyway. So if they are going for all of these variances, go for a variance to use that road. Keeping everything confined to your property, a buffer zone of trees. It's a beautiful building. I don't want to look at it. I would rather look at what I see today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you like to address that? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And again, the word, "Special Exception" is that we state that we will have no horse shows. So that it does not become something like that. And that is something that can be inserted into a decision. The second part is, that there is a planting plan. That is part of the site plan process. I do anticipate that the Planning Board will have a public hearing. We will have a strip of arborvitae's. Now, I am not sure if that is acceptable but we will address that in our application. The remaining things speak to problems that have apparently arisen in the past. And this application, gives us the opportunity to run it in a different way, which I think Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of that what we I would the neighbors of what is less impact to exist today. MR. PETERS: They may be wonderful business owners. I live in a residence. Ail on Pond Lane, looks nature. And put in the center, looks like what consider a commercial business. If at all we have to follow part of this, all of this, some of it, be considerate to your neighbors. Come to us. Talk to us. Say hey, can we talk to you about what we would like to do? We might have some mean, who knows. We may hey, we are in favor of stand up here and say I open field for the rest of my is my right. I am saying that suggestions. I come here and say, it. I don't want to want to look at an life and that the good before. And else, I a good That holds neighbor policy never existed before we turn it over to someone would like to see that there is neighbor policy going forward. everybody accountable. (In Audible) to stand up here and say that the entire Ward's letter is inaccurate, is inaccurate. To say that my wife's letter only addressed Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this little, is inaccurate. Pleas take the time to read them. My next door neighbor Brian Becket is here. He wants to say how he feels. You know what, we have been taken advantage every step of the way. Mr. Bergrath is going to take his money, whether it's a million and change and go back to the south side and he is going to live over there. And he doesn't care what he gets stuck with. We do. This is what his plan was all along. He said this when we brought John Ahlers there. I am sure that John Ahlers remembers the comments. You know what, I don't get what I want. I will put big riding stable right up here in the center. I am sorry that they have to live with his words but he has been expecting this. This conversation has gone through the small community since then. Thank you. I know that other people want to say other words and I will step down. But if I may have the opportunity to have a written response, I will take my 32 page of notes and put it into a written page response and put it into writing and send it to the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Board. MR. ANDERSON: (In Audible). (Far away from the microphone.) MR. ANDERSON: We have had this reviewed by several attorneys already and all of us agree, we are not violating the covenant restrictions in any manner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lets see if there is anyone else in the audience that would like to address the Board. You will again, have a chance to respond in writing and the applicants will to. MR. SWENKOWSKI: Good afternoon. My name is Dennis Swenkowski and I live at 1055 Ackerly Pond Lane, which is east of the horse stable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you please spell your name, sir? MR. SWENKOWSKI: Excuse me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you please spell your name so we can have it correctly in the record? MR. SWENKOWSKI: Last name, S-W-E-N-S-K-O-W-S-K-I. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SWENKOWSKI: What I see here is an (In Audible) of the properties. It is a tremendous building. I work in constriction so I understand what they are getting at with this horse academy. And it is a lot of buildings for that land. It will take away from my living. It will be compromised because of this building. And what they would like to do there. And I really don't know all the intentions if doing this. Once you are grandfathered in, who knows. Anything could go. The other thing is the traffic situation. Ackerly Pond Lane used to be very quite. It isn't any more. There is a lot of trucks coming in. They have to bring in food for the horses and that nature. It's also become semiindustrual. It is very noisy. There are tractors and there is noise over there. And what I see, it is not a great way to live there. If they do have the approval to grant this, I think I am going to have to make plans to go live somewhere else. At this point, I have stated my point here. Thank you for your time. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 157 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? MR. BECKER: My name is Brian Becker of 1435 Ackerly Pond Lane. And I am Lot 3, that puts me in the middle of them. I have some questions in regards to the covenants that were originally put into place by Pam Hunt. The original property owner who petitioned fir the subdivision in 1991 and the Planning Board at that time wasn't in existence. I also built my home in 1995 with the understanding that these covenants were put into place for keeping the property pretty much the way it was then. I do understand that patterns come and go (In Audible) horse farm as it was then and as it is now. My father has 5200 square foot barns and 14,400 square feet arena doesn't really fit especially when one considers the covenants that were put in place as well as the language that I would like the Board to look at. The language with particularly the building envelope and the easement. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 158 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 clarify for the record, covenants and restrictions are actually a matter for civil action. This Zoning Board goes by Southold Town Code and we certainly ask for to look at what the covenants have to say, it is not within our jurisdiction to make a determination based upon what any subdivision or homeowners association imposes on itself. Having said that, it does affect these C & R's, in one of the area variances, it requires us to look at the character of the neighborhood and in so far as sometimes covenants address that character. We then can conclude some thinking or consideration. I just want you all to understand that. This Board does not have a court of law where we would be interpreting or making determinations based upon civil matters among neighbors. MS. ANDALORO: Leslie, there were some covenants and restrictions placed on this property that we can look at. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, and we will. Yes, the Planning Board placed those and we will look at that. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 public is MR. ANDERSON: I hearing with the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: widely anticipated. MS. ANDALORO: You That else going here parties a anticipate having a Planning Board. Oh, yes, that can waive might want to look into that -- MR. ANDERSON: The real point is you will see this when you take a close look at these covenants, that it's horse operation and then you will go to that August 12th letter and you will see the Planning Board telling you -- in other words, we don't believe we have covenant problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Understand. is the letter that we gave you? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone that would like to address this Board? (No Response.) MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where are we from here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think from is probably is give all interested chance to put their concerns in it, you and Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 writing. Have an opportunity for the applicant to address those concerns in writing. I think given the nature of this course of afternoon, another date, so that hearing on this -- MR. BECKER: something? Could the stake out where these located? Now, I am -- set of tax maps and there probably adjourn to we can have another Could I just ask property possibly are going to be you know, we have one is a site plan that doesn't take into effect the easements and the building envelopes. And is if it possible, if we can see them on the property staked out. Even if it's just four corners, so we can see where the proposed building are going to be. So we can see what our views are, as well as, where the easement, the way we think they are. So we would have a better understanding of what we are looking at then? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: about that? How do you feel MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, I am asking Zoning Board of Appeals Septe~er 1, 2011 161 1 2 $ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 the applicant. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I~m sorry. MR. ANDERSON: I am happy to stake out anything but what I would like to do is close and leave it for written comment. So if I tell you I can stake it out in a week, it can be staked out in a week and they can incorporate whatever their visual impact is, based on that stake house. I won't be doing it. I will have a licensed surveyor stake it out. We think we can get to the same place by written submission and we are comfortable with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I can really understand and appreciate your point of view, my concern though is create a citation where we overlook something and new information has come in and we have no opportunity to question anything because we closed the hearing. Then we have to vote to open it again. Do you see what I am saying? I can't anticipate -- MR. ANDERSON: I would be willing to take that risk -- MR. BECKER: You don't live there. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That MR. ANDERSON: I think that is okay. can be addressed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What does the Board think? MEMBER HORNING: I think we should leave it open. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I would close it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the easiest -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I know what we can do, we can leave it open till the -- here is a compromised situation. We won't adjourn to another date. What we will do is leave this open. This hearing is open with the -- we will close verbal testimony and what we will do is leave this open. We have a meeting in two weeks. We will accept anything in writing in the next two weeks. Anybody who wants to come into our office can see anything they want to see. You will have an opportunity to respond to any of those things in writing. This Board will have a chance to review all written material received for the next two weeks, at our special meeting, which is going to Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be the evening of Thursday, September 15th. 5:00 o'clock. If then we will vote proceed to make a That is a good WEISMAN: suggest enough it may owners behove everyone and some of the owners and you, may maybe want to meet on the property and talk to each other. Answer each others questions, face to face and potential neighbors are going to live there. They are going to live there. They are not going to be absent. We want you to get together and find a time and iron out your concerns. It is really possible. This Board has recommending it before and it has worked. So I would hope that you take to there are questions, We can schedule it for additional The other thing and there seems good will all We meet starting at everything is clear, close the record and decision. However, if we will not close it. for the following meeting questions. MR. ANDERSON: compromise. CHAIRPERSON that I am going to to me that there is the way around, that if the new potential Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 advantage of it. And we can go back on the site as well and see where it will be staked out. So maybe you can give Vicki a call -- MR. ANDERSON: Yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To show visually where these are being proposed. you don't have copies. Our file is If available to anyone. So you can get copies. And we can take it from there. So I am going to make a motion to leave this hearing open until the special meeting for the purposes of receiving written testimony or written documentation. We will close the verbal discussion and we will review whatever we receive at the special meeting in two weeks. Is there a second to that? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Second. Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (See Minutes for Resolution.) ******************************************* XXII, Inspector's Disapproval HEARING Request for variance Code Section 280-116 June 8, 2011 based on an #6501 FRANK G. GILBERT from Article and the Building Notice of application for building permit to construct a deck and as built accessory gazebo at; 1) less than the code required setback of 75 feet from a bulkhead for the proposed deck and as built gazebo, located at: Drive, adjacent to (Whereupon, 1095 North Parish Peconic Bay, Southold. transcription started from when the testimony.) tape began in the middle of MS. MOORE: So the gazebo is as built. It doesn't need anything to it. Maybe some shingles on the roof. After the windstorm but for the most part, the gazebo is in pretty good shape. So overall I would try and like to address any questions that you have. It's a pretty straightforward application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pat, do you Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have a copy from the Trustees of the letter that was sent August 22nd? They are simply saying that they reviewed our information. MS. MOORE: That is what I remember seeing something about gutters. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They are saying that they have no concerns about the talking about the step? MS. MOORE: Oh, yes. We have an application to them for the stairs and the deck but they wanted your approval first. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you are before them also? MS. MOORE: I will be. I am trying to remember. I know I prepared it. Whether or not we filed it or not, I can't remember. I think if has been filed. That is in the back of my head. If it hasn't been filed, it will be filed. application and any addition to leaders, gutters and dry wells installed. And that we should note that permits would be required through this office. The office of the Trustees. Any proposed work, including the repairs. I would suppose they are Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am glad to see, you are proposing to put steps along this reconstruction of the deck but that slope is unbelievable. Solid mud slide. MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When we were there, there was a ravine running down from the steps. So it's a very peculiar contour on that. On the other side, it is a lot flatter. MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The gazebo is nothing more than a landing and a rood and therefore it is considered a structure. And I will see how the other Board members feel. With regard to the contour slopes dramatically down so quickly on the property, it is so close to -- it is a well vegetated bluff. It doesn't appear to have much erosion. I understand you want to max out as much as you can for the purposes of sitting and having hat you want on that deck. It is pretty narrow now. Are you talking about removing some shrubs? MS. MOORE: Yes, right now there are Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some box woods going to be removed. We can certainly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is around that that has replant. there a the bulkhead of a concern part, then chance, I am concerned about setback even though its more for runoff on the sloppy grassy the -- once you get to the heavily part of the bluff and you hit the bulkhead it is not so bad but the grassy area is just like -- you practically have trouble walking on it. have MS. MOORE: The photographs that I submitted with the plan, the deck area is the flatter area and then right after that there is a little pack of sand and Audible). It is a really nice vegetrated buffer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are proposingf to go from a 6 foot width MS. MOORE: 4 -- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 4 to a 9. MS. MOORE: Maybe becuase I read numbers on the survey wrong. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: says on the survey. Look what it (In the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOORE: Do you have it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I got it. I have it right here. Well, in the interest in attempting to grant the least amount of variance possible, what hardship would their be if 9 feet became somewhat less than that? MS. MOORE: I spoke to my client about that. This is his summer home. It's nice to have a little extra room. In lieu of getting a denial, we would certainly consider something less. The area that we are proposing to put the deck is the flat area. I think an 8 foot deck gives you enough room for circulation, table and chairs. It's the usable area, can we cut back a foot, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I personally don't have a problem and I will tell you the reason why. The bushes themselves are taking uo 2 1/2, 3 feet anyway. And some, you know, you are at 8 already. So you are really coming out this far. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The LWRP says Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that it is consistent. MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: (Whereupon, at this skipped and testimony picked resumed.) MS. vegetated Ken? (In Audible). time, the tape up where it MOORE: It's a very well area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, we saw it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: problem with the 9 feet. really can't build a patio the slope. In order to do have to build a retaining have a problem with the 9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: like to else in the audience application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? No, I don't have a I see that you there because of that, you would wall. So I don't foot. Okay. Anyone address this Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6422 - BENALI, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is a carryover. So there is no need to read the legal notice. Welcome back. Would you like to state your name for the record? MR. KRAM: Steve Kram for Benali. We had requested an adjournment for some time. Apparently it was denied by your office and I tried to reach our counsel. They have no power. Phones are busy. They were not able to be here or prepare. So we were unable to prepare. We also have not heard any decision from the DEC, which obviously, we spent more money preparing the materials that you requested and the -- if are denied by the DEC, then we would have to make a decision if we move forward and what happens in the future. Apparently, the ZBA Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 172 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 has had 3 adjournments totaling in 12 months in time. And we have only had one adjournment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I need to make some corrections to the letter. We have received a letter from Rosenberg and Laitman and for the record, I want to respond to the comments in that letter. First of all, while because our computers are down too, I have not had an opportunity in great detail to go through the record but I will first address the notes that I have in my own file. It is not accurate to suggest that the ZBA has requested more than one adjournment. That we requested one adjournment from the original hearing in October of 2010 to January 2011 for the purpose of being able to get more research on the wetland line. MR. KRAM: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We held a second hearing in January, okay. And the request after that, we received several letters from your attorney -- MR. KRAM: Yeah, and none were Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 173 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, they were. They certainly were. Absolutely. We adjourned to -- lets see, I haven't got all these letters in front of me. I don't want to take the time and go through the file right now while we are this late in the day. It is suffice to say that we have had three public hearings, of February 28th, this Board approved an adjournment at your attorneys request, to March 3rd. MR. KRAM: Right, that was the one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In March we requested information in writing. We requested that on several occasions. The last hearing we had was July 7th. We adjourned at the request of your attorney. At one point, there was a no show. In any case, you have had since March, when we made the request for certain information t submit it. And to suggest that we are being precipitous now and -- MR. KRAM: No, I don't think you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We need to once again, adjourn. It was your request to Zoning Board of Appeals Septe~er 1, 2011 174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 adjourn to September. MR. KRAM: I think if you ask Ms. Andaloro, I was here last one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I know that. We were here too. MR. KRAM: There was no adjournment, I had to come. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, your adjournment was granted, July 7th. We considered the attorneys proposal. You did not have to come. It was recommended that what you should be here. We were not sure the Board was going to do. The Board granted your request to adjourn to September, although testimony was taken in July because you were here. You wanted to say something. So we at the courtesy opened that hearing and allowed you to say so. It had been advertised legally and we had an obligation to open that hearing. MR. KRAM: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was granted. MR. KRAM: Oh, I thought I was here and it was not granted. I am here today and asking for adjournment. I do have neighbors Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 175 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that came here to speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just correct this letter. There have been a number of adjournments at the request of your attorney. There have been -- the request was made for information that was going to help this Board understand a little more of what your application was about. That information essentially included having a house, your proprosed house, drawn with an elevation that showed it on pilings, as it would have to be built. MR. KRAM: Correct. I know I have seen that drawing. I just can't get to him. They sent me a draft of that, and I can't get to them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me go over the information that we requested, and explain why it was requested, and why it is not essential for this Board to have in order to make a determination. The reason for the elevation was because we wanted to see what it would look like on 8 foot high pilings with two-story, which is what you Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 176 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 were proposing. We currently have other properties that are on pilings that high, that we can go out into the field and get a sense of without having it (In Audible). It was going to be helpful but it wasn't essential. We then asked for the survey that we all agreed this is where the wetland line would be. For your benefit finish. months MR. KRAM: I appreciate it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please let me This was in March. This is six later. MR. KRAM: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We requested that the survey that we agreed to, that you tell us did it change, where you want to put the dwelling or was it the same. And also, did it effect the lot coverage since the building envelope was altered by the wetland line. We can proceed with the survey that is before us, in terms of the lot coverage, as applied. This was a courtesy to you, to see if there was any adjustments, if you wished to make. It was possible that based upon the wetland line, Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 177 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a lot coverage variance might have been the that And you said, fine, we will get the information in by August 16th. And then willsschedule the hearing in September, which is today. Now, the purpose of decisions -- today's hearing was limited to questions about the materials submitted. So this where we sit at this point. Do you see what I am saying? MR. KRAM: Yes, I -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We make these MR. KRAM: I agree with you. we is extend this to August 16th, which was the day before our next special meeting, okay. required and to make sure, if that was case, that as a courtesy, we included in your -- MR. KRAM: I appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In your application, so that you wouldn't be before us with a new application. So we have repeatedly requested that information and in July, we specifically, and you sat there and agreed to it, okay. We're going to Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They gave us their comments in writing and if they revert and they denied your permit, and we attended the hearing. Your attorney and the DEC was before a judge. The transcript will reflect the fact that there was no comments because this was an application that was before us, okay. The transcript will reflect that on a technicality of time frame, you were pursuing with the DEC. But that comment is not relevant to the area variance, which is a 10 foot setback from the road, that is another thing. MR. KRAM: I really appreciate that, chairman. I am not an expert and certainly have not done this before, but I was under the impression and from rereading the transcript that we were going to have this September 1st, as you said, subject to receipt to August 17th -- 16th, of the requested information. And since we couldn't get the information, we sent a letter asking for the adjournment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand that. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. KRAM: So it was subject to the getting the information, since we told you beforehand that we weren't going to have the information. We didn't understand why there was a delay in the hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I can explain that. Because when this Board requested information and waited six months to obtain it, one wonders, when you're going to get it. What's the hold up? MR. KRAM: Listen, I am here by myself and I don't have an answer for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, you. but what am trying to tell you and what I have just entered into the record, is that information, while desirable, it is in not any way critical and essential for this Board to make it's determination, what you have applied to us before. There is one other thing in this letter that I want to clarify with you, Mr. Kram. Once again, although I thought I had made it clear last hearing on July 7th. There is the reference by your attorney to information that you were promised by us that you did Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 not receive, which includes correspondences between myself and your office and the Trustees and correspondences between our office and the DEC. I will once again, reiterate, loud and clear and as I said to you before, there is no such existing information -- MR. KRAM: Great, certainly appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No e-mails. There is nothing from the DEC. Every single scrap of paper that is on our file, you have had access to. MR. KRAM: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I really want to make it clear that you have been given fair and unbiased treatment. That in no way, I or any other member of the Board or our office has any intention in treating you in -- MR. KRAM: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In any other way but partial -- MR. KRAM: I really appreciate CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is that. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nothing hidden. There has been no (In Audible) behind your back to be prejudicial about anything. MR. KRAM: I appreciate you telling me. That is what you said at the last hearing. I think -- I have no idea why he requested it again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will tell you that the Boards secretary and Board Member Goehringer went to the DEC to look at their file. There was nothing of value there. Therefore, there was nothing that we could put in our file. If we had to, we would have it in our file. MR. KRAM: They wouldn't give it to us. about this MR. you. you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are we clear now? KRAM: Of course, I have heard CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't want to keep suggesting or have your attorney suggest that any biases on this application or there has been any kind of hanky-panky, between our office or any Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 182 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other legal or entity. So where do we stand from here? MR. KRAM: I think there were public comments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Lets do that. Is there any one in the audience that would like to address this application? is name, MR. DE VITO: Good afternoon. My name Daniel DeVito. I own a home -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: DeVito? MR. DE VITO: D-E-V-I-T-O, first Daniel. I am not the actor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that why you referred to yourself as Daniel and not Danny? MR. DE VITO: Yes. I get great hotel rooms though. I will be brief. I am good friends with Mr. Kram. I am actually friends with Mr. Palmenteri. He is actually my neighbor who lives across the street from me. I just wanted to make sure that this Board understands and with all do respect to Mr. Palmenteri, he is still going to be my neighbor and certainly my friend after this. I don't think the Board Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understands, he does not reflect the opinion, if you will, of the entire (In Audible) community. And I wanted to make that clear. In fact, I don't think there is anyone else, as far as I know, that has opposed Mr. Kram's application. I don't believe there is anyone from Westlake that has really done. As far as we are concern, I think Mr. Palmenteri and I have the same birds eye view. The only way that you can see it is if you do a helicopter and do surveillance. Quite frankly, we think the footprint, I am not obviously going to get into any variances that need to be made, 10 feet this way or 10 feet that way, but we think the footprint of the home is quite frankly can fit in my pool. We don't think it's intrusive and in all honesty, my wife is here. She is a real estate agent. I am a licensed real estate broker. It would seem to me that improving a lot like that would be putting some type of structure up, and I think Mr. Kram has offered something that is accommodating to the community. We would be beneficial. It would enhance the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 community. And I could also tell you what the house may look like, there are actually programs out there right now that are available to you at a very iow cost, that are actually animated programs. You can drop something in and you could see what it looks like. Same thing on pilings. I am not here as his attorney, although, as full disclosure, I am one. But -- this -- just to make sure that the Board understands why I am here and whatever public comments have been made, do not reflect what our entire (In Audible) community believes. Do you have any questions or comments? I would be happy to answer them. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application. Please state your name? MR. PALMENTERI: Joseph Palmenteri, P-A-L-M-E-N-T-E-R-I. Probably not all of Angel Shores knows what is going on. Yesterday, I just approached a fella that is looking directly at this building, 150 Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 feet, 200 feet from him. He was very upset. He is not a healthy person. He could not come here with me today. I offered to take him and he is upset that he is going to be looking at a building on pilings. He didn't care for the building at all, but to have it on pilings, he would be sitting on his front porch looking at this building, it would be underneath him, maybe. Ail right. You know, basically Mr. Kram can't say that he bought this property with the intent to build because as I understand this wasn't buildable property. I approached this property, only to find out that the water was very shallow. Only for the reason to put a dock there, which I understood that Mr. Kram bought it for that reason. Now he is trying to turn it into a buildable lot. There was a permit at one time. It was 1964. That is when you were able to throw your garage in the woods. This is in my view, pristine wetlands. And to to just mess that up, it's just unheard of. I don't believe that this house should be built at all. And hopefully the environmental will Zoning Board of Appeals September t, 2011 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just knock it down. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Kram, is there anything that you would like to say? MR. KRAM: Thank you, Mr. Palmenteri. I appreciate the fact that he owned up that he tried to buy this property. Obviously, there is some sour grapes there still. I always intended to build on this piece of property. The house next door is on pilings, closer to the water. I think it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Kram, I am going to have to stop this for a moment and we are going to have to take a recess. We have an arraignment before us and they take preference over us. Motion to take a recess. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (Whereupon, a recess was taken at Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 187 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this time.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Are you ready? MR. PALMENTERI: Yes. I was talking about Mr. Palmenteri who finally admitted he tried to buy the property. Obviously he was going to build something on it. At least according to the prior owner. Sounds like sour grapes to me. As I was saying the house next door is on pilings. It has to be a 2500 -- maybe a little more square foot house. This is about an 850 square foot print. We got a little off track when I brought up the issue about Jim King. Mr. King has publicly said that he was against our application. He has said this to more than one person. Me, being one of the people. You know, I thought and I appreciate, Chairman Weisman, what you said before, it is kind of odd that he was the go between the ZBA and the DEC. He has never heard the application. But for some personal reason, he is against our application. Some reason that I don't know. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 188 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 So I thought that was some of an odd thing to get him involved in our application. You said, we have interagency communications all the time, but to use a guy who has said he is publicly against the application, was sort of a difficult thing for me to understand. As I said, I have counsel here, counsel -- I don't understand in any way how the ZBA is prejudice to continue this. I don't know what additional information you have. I do think that the idea of (In Audible) drawings was suggested by someone. I think, Member Horning, we were trying to do that. I still have one alternative drawing. Just to give you an idea, it would be a story and a half. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: in our file. You submitted We have that that. Then you plan with a smaller second submitted an amended floor elevations, which had story with decks. MR. KRAM: Great. I thought you wanted alternative plans, for some alternative stuff to try and be helpful here. I think that is what they have been Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 working on in terms of the -- showing the building on pilings, obviously you can imagine, what it is going to look like. It is just like the neighbor but there was something else. I again say, there is no prejudice here. Can't you just wait until we get the information or whatever it is that they want to present? If there is some rush, then I guess so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: it is a rush, Mr. Kram. Board has been gracious MR. KRAM: And I CHAIRPERSON a number of times. way rushed this. MR. KRAM: now. It's not that Certainly this enough -- appreciate that. WEISMAN: In hearing this And we have had in no No, I am talking about CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I tried to point out earlier, while the information was desirable, it would have been helpful. It is in no way essential or critical before moving forward as in making a decision that you have applied for. MR. KRAM: You have made that clear. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I was here the last time and I thought there would only be a hearing if we could get that information all together. So that is why I was surprised, like everyone else, that I had to run over here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a hearing. It was legally advertised. a hearing that was scheduled at your It was attorneys request MR. KRAM: accurate. CHAIRPERSON letter requesting MR. KRAM: No, I don't think that is WEISMAN: Yes, September -- No, you decided we have a September at the last hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, sir. MR. KRAM: Subject to receipt of the information by August 16th -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, this Board did do that but they were responding to the request to have a hearing in September. MR. KRAM: I think the request was for November and at the last hearing, Mr. Goehringer, I think you were the one who said November and Chairman Weisman, you Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 191 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 said September. It was only me. I was here by myself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand. MS. ANDALORO: I really think that is irrelevant. I think the Board has made its point in being very generous in granting adjournments. Going back and forth. It's in the record. I don't think we need to go through it right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I agree. MR. KRAM: Thank you again. We appreciate your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We appreciate your testimony and thank you for coming today. Did you have another comment? MR. PALMENTERI: I just wanted to straighten out Mr. Kram's comment. I was only looking for that property, so I could put my boat there. The water was too iow. It was not sour grapes. It just didn't fit my bill, all right. Also, you people have been very, very patient with Mr. Kram's application. My question to you is, when does it end? I will keep coming back every time there is a scheduled hearing but is Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 192 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this going to keep on going? Next year? Next summer? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, as I said at the last hearing, we would schedule a hearing in September and the purpose of the hearing today, was in case any Board member had or any other interested party, had anything to say about the information. If the Board has proceeded to take additional testimony or to reiterate and go over once again, information that we have discussed over and over again. MR.' KRAM: We were in a State of Emergency, I didn't know what else to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am saying that we have discussed this matter publicly before all of you and that the Board feels that we have all the information. Going forward, I will suspect that the Board will be putting in place a policy and procedure on requested information that there will be a time limit. MR. KRAM: I appreciate that very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have learned Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 something. MR. KRAM: I appreciate your time. I would have never thought if we didn't have the information, we would have the hearing. There is no way they could be here. I know they wanted to be. So I don't know what to do. Thank you, again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. The Board is going to make a motion to close the hearing. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I'll second it. favor? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Our next application is for Deborah Penney, #6484. This is a carryover. So there is no need to read the legal notice again. Is there someone here to represent the applicant. MR. BRESSLER: Eric Bressler, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING %6484 DEBORAH PENNEY Zoning Board of Appeals Septe~oer 1, 2011 194 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 Wickham, Main Road, afternoon, Bressler, Gordon and Geasa. 13015 Mattituck, New York 11952. Good ladies and gentlemen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good afternoon. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So nice to see you. It has been a long time. MR. BRESSLER: Thank you, Mr. Goehringer. I feel special being here. I hope the feeling is reciprocal. And I had something planned for you. I represent the applicant here this afternoon and my understanding, not having been here and transcription delays not having the benefit in reviewing the minutes. My understanding of this was that, it is relatively simple application, which involves the reconstruction of Ms. Penney's home. To move it further from the water. And at the same time increase the front yard setback as well. It was relatively simply but difficult when an objectant appeared. And it was my understanding that the Board adjourned the matter in light of items certain material that was presented to the Board. And it is my intention this Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 195 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 afternoon to address those issues, hopefully to your satisfaction. Again, I am going to give you is a relative what the issue that arose concerning the checking of a certain box on a form connected with the application for this Board. Which required in substance as to the existence of restrictions. And that box was checked, no, and it was my understanding that it was made untruthful and deceptive to the Board. This is not so. The facts regarding this particular matter are again relatively simple and not in dispute. What occurred with respect to Salt Lake Village several years ago, and I am sure those of you have direct knowledge of this in living in the area. What the Salt Lake Village developed some number of years ago, and in conjunction with the development of the lots, there was a plan was put into place, whereby certain covenants were put into place and restrictions were placed into these at straight forward process back on track. The first issue that I would like to address is Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 196 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 various times and various circumstances. From the time that it was originally started to be developed late 20's. Whenever that was. It is really not that important because by 1966, everybody in this devotement signed on to a piece of paper. A declaration and they all agreed that they were bound by covenants and restrictions. None of which however I would haten to add, are an issue before the Board on this appeal. The covenants and restrictions were acknowledged in 1966 and two things happened, and I have copies of all these things for you, and I will hand up. What this declaration said is that we are all bound by these things and that it said you could only have a one and half story house and everting has back 25 feet. know what we the Salt Lake Village everybody is going to to be basically setback And it went on to say, you are going to do and say is, Association, join it and they have the power by a 2/3 vote to alter these covenants and only the Salt Lake Village could enforce them. That is what they did Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 197 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in 1966. In 1994, they had a meeting and 2/3 of the association voted to conform the covenants to Town of Southold Zoning, which of course is not the same as what was in the declaration. Two-story's are permitted, side yard, setbacks of 15 feet. 75 feet from the bulkhead and so forth. And there was a vote. And the results of that vote were that they were affirmative. They adopted the Town Code. So when my client check that box, it was an absolute truthful answer to the best of her knowledge. Now, as I said earlier, not withstand that fact, those covenants are not at issue here. Ail we are talking about is something that is more than 25 feet from the water and 25 feet from the road. The covenants don't even come into play. The third point that I wanted to make is that these covenants don't matter to this Board. And the reason why they don't matter to this Board is that -- without berating a dead horse, everyone knows what the factors are. Everyone knows what the balancing test is. The (In Audible) that the seat on a part of the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 198 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 applicant is not one of those factors. Now, it didn't happen here but even if it did, that is not one of the five factors. In any event, the most you can make out of it, maybe it goes to one of the factors of self created hardship. The last factor, even if those covenants are in place, the entire community, as you are well aware is in violation of the covenants. Everything is to close. This Board has approved on multiple occasions, two-story structures, whether they be houses or garages. On 18 lots, I have that 16 of them have covenants violations. prepared for the Board a package contains the following. Contains the original declaration. Contains the (In Audible) whereby these covenants were removed. It contains a tax map of the area with the owners by name and letter and then for each name and letter, we have some nice photographs showing the property. We have property cards. We have surveys where available and we have a little summary of how these particular properties are not in so-called covenants. conformance with the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 In short, I am not going to go over what the applicant went over last time, which is that it is entirely in compliance with the character of the neighborhood. You will see that again, (In Audible) not only that the covenant has no legs. So that it is in conformance with the neighborhood. We are moving further back from the water. We are moving further back from the road. It meets the height requirements and it meets the side requirements. Since this was the kind this Board would want it into more conformity. The second issue to me, there was some Now, since I know the of application that to see. To bring That makes sense. occurred, as related issue about the sun. Board is familiar with the property and I know the Board is familiar with the proposition of the sun rises and sets in the west. rumor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I've heard that MR. BRESSLER: Will you take notice of that. Will you take notice that we are in the norther hemisphere, so that arch Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ~9 20 21 22 23 24 25 takes place to the south. Okay. Given that fact, we have here today, this gentleman, who is an expert in matters relating to solar and he is prepared to tell you this afternoon that nothing that we are planning to do impacts in any way on the solar panel that the objectant doesn't have. That he might put in. If the objectant house was on the other side, maybe. We are completely complaint with code and we have also brought here today, the architectural firm representing the applicant, should the Board have any questions about the red haring that was raised, window. The windows, they were referenced. They were high. The base of the window is 6 feet up basically. There is a large hedge approximately 12 feet high. The applicant has basically done everything that she can do to try and bring this property into a condition that would be more compliant with zoning and we have heard nothing, at least related to me and I believe there will be nothing in the record that would indicate there is any reason why the variances that Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 201 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have been applied for, shouldn't be granted. The architect is willing to speak, if the Board has any questions about why this design maximizes safety on the road side at the same time, moves back the house from the water. And reduces the lengthwise, footprint of the house. It is a very sound plan and with that being said, I will turn the mic over briefly to man who is going to speak with respect to the sun, and who has prepared a one page summary. As opposed to my luminous document, which I will hand up nOW. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just ask you a couple of questions. I will of course read it and make sure everyone has a chance to review it. You had indicated you had some research on other variances within this subdivision, are they basically old C & R's? MR. BRESSLER: Yes, they are attached to the packages. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: transcript, and the public how many properties in the subdivision have For the record of the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 202 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 nonconformities based upon the original covenants and restrictions? MR. BRESSLER: I have prepared a chart for you. 17. The vast majority. As said before, those C & R's are not before you because we are only talking about the street, the front yard and we are talking about the water. And it has been my experience over the years, that matters concerning covenants like this, does not interject themselves, when those issues are not before They may not interject themselves may be a civil dispute. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just you are present and we don't transcript available yet power, the problems that For obvious reasons, I guess is a good reason not to have I this Board particularly the Board. into what because have the because of the we have all had. the hurricane a transcript, nevertheless, because neither of you were here representing the neighbor here, I do want to reiterate that this Board did make it very clear at that public hearing, that C & R's are a matter for civil Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 203 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 jurisdiction. And we are not that court. And that we do not have the jurisdiction enforce C & R's. On the other hands, C & to R's are relevant, if they may not reflect the character of the neighborhood. What we were interested in, was looking to see how in fact those original C & R's may come into play with creating a kind of conforming neighborhood. And what you are submitting to us, and I just want to make sure I understand it correctly, is research that shows otherwise. That there are many properties in this subdivision that do not conform to the restrictions of 25 foot side yards, bulkheads. MR. BRESSLER: Height. That is correct. They actually serve in the abstract a two-fold purpose, which I stated to you before but as you correctly stated, Madam Chairman, that the covenants are for a civil matter. The only issue really before you is would it change the character of the neighborhood and the evidence before you shows that this would not be change in the character of the neighborhood at all. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 204 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the other thing is, our jurisdiction is acting on whatever the Notice of Disapproval said and what is before us is not a side yard variance. What is before us is a front yard variance of 29.15 feet, where the code requires 35 and the existing 21.3. MR. BRESSLER: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And a setback from the bulkhead of 43.79 feet. The code requiring 75. The existing being 40.7 feet. MR. BRESSLER: That is correct. That it both decreases the level of nonconformity. I agree with you 100% and we are prepared at this time, the evidence that I referred to. The originals of letters that we have received of support of this particular application. And we have for you, from our solar expert, a one page diagram showing the location of solar panels. The location of south, and he is willing to speak for 2 or 3 minutes and tell you how these panels actually work and where they need to get power from. That having been said, I am handing up 8 Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 205 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 original letters Spacey, Macatta, and McGlaughlin. CHAIRPERSON the nature of these MR. BRESSLER: support. CHAIRPERSON will make sure that MR. BRESSLER: (In Audible). (Stepped away MR. BRESSLER: from Gilroy, Reynolds, Janson, Howley, Guerraci WEISMAN: And what are letters? These are letters in WEISMAN: Thank you. We everyone gets a copy. I am also handing up record, I would like him to name -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: from the microphone.) I think for the give his MR. BRESSLER: bit what it is. MR. FRANCO: Good afternoon, Franco from Sunation Solar. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And describe Franco, please? MR. FRANCO: Please do. a little CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: you like to tell us? Okay. What would F-R-A-N-C-O. Quintin Could you spell Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 206 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. FRANCO: Just that I put the diagram together so you can see that the Penney's house is above the neighbors. And the incoming solar system would use the sun from the south, house wouldn't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you give a little bit about what your background MR. FRANCO: I'm sorry. I design sell solar systems east and west, which there interfere with at all. us is? and for the company. We are based out of Oakdale. We have done over 550 systems on Long Island and part of my job is to assess rooves, analyze capes just for solar systems. To see where applicable and where a system will work. So if I was looking at the neighbors house, I would actually advise them to take the tree down, but that is it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any questions from the Board? MR. BRESSLER: (In Audible). MR. FRANCO: I have a college degree. t have a Bachelor's in Business Management program. How long have you been enrolled in the MBA MR. BRESSLER: Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 207 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 training? MR. FRANCO: I have been doing solar for about six years. So I am fairly experienced. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any questions from the Board? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nope. Great presentation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very much. This stuff is piling up. MR. BRESSLER: We have a representative of the architectural firm, if anyone has any questions concerning any of those aspects. If there are any questions, as to the architectural people who designed this thing, he is more than able and certainly willing to answer any of those questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Again, I would state for the record and for the benefit of both Mr. Bressler and Mr. Barrett, the architect made a fairly thorough presentation on the drawings at the hearing and I believe any questions regarding the last actual building envelope, Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 208 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 site -- placement on the site, architectural development, height, were reviewed. The drawings are completely clear. The only thing that I needed and did get one, was a larger site plan. The one that was provided with those drawings were very small, but we do have the larger ones that we can read the setback. MR. BRESSLER: (In Audible) satisfied with what they have, we are prepared to bring up drawing, which we prepared in large form. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, certainly, I would be happy to look at it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only testimony that I would like to hear from him are regarding the windows that face the neighbors. MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Once again, my name is Steve Christiansen. I am from Richard Boyd Architects, and in regards to the windows that you are speaking about, the (In Audible) windows, once again, the purpose of the home and the concern for the neighbors, I won't get into it all again, Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 but we stepped the entire second floor in and provided hip roofs coming up. They are higher clear (sic) story. The bedroom window is about 22 foot from the property line and the bathroom is about 16 feet from the property line. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In your opinion, is there any visual impact on the neighbors property? MR. CHRISTIANSEN: No and once again, just to be considerate, we reset the home in. I mean, everything complies. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just for the basis of this record, I have not spoken to you regarding this at any time other than to this time. MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Nope, not at all. And once again, the windows are up high on the second floor. I do have -- since there was always a concern with the one adjacent neighbor. I decided to put together a survey, so that you could physically see the difference of the structure with all the setbacks relating to the property lines. And I have a copy here (In Audible). Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 210 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Stepped away from the microphone.) MR. CHRISTIANSEN: And then we took the two adjacent homes and we put the setbacks from the property lines. So you could see how the other houses relate to the Penney's home. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. And how many copies do you have? MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Unfortunately, I brought them to the Board of Trustees and I only have one. I can get you as many as you need. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: could submit them. I will would like to have copies members. You know what you to do, just you please just using this drawing, adjacent property? MR. CHRISTIANSEN: and once again, these 37.025 foot and there with a covered canopy Sure, if you take that one. for all the I am going to ask for the transcript, would enter into the record, the setback of the I 1/2. And from the property line that is The adjacent home are plus or minus, is is an existing deck and that one is 21 Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 211 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17.625 side yard. And then there is also a property line shed that is 12 foot off the and 15 feet from the street. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: obtained? MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Basically, the adjacent properties we do not have the surveys. And it is stated on here, we went onto Google Earth and that is how we do a lot of it. So again, the numbers are taken from here, Google Earth. We scaled up the Penney's house so that matched up with the other home. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. MR. CHRISTIANSEN: How would you like me to get the copes to you, can I mail them? them. MR. copies? raised CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can mail CHRISTIANSEN: And how many CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seven. MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that patio? a How is that data Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 212 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 patio. MR. CHRISTIANSEN: It's a fenced in CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it counts -- MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't want to upset you today, Mr. Bressler, but everything that you say today counts. MR. CHRISTIANSEN: We will get you copies tomorrow. MR. BRESSLER: We don't want to delay this. We are trying to get onto the Trustees calendar. (Far away from MR. BRESSLER: need, we will get to you want to hold anything up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Christiansen, in order validity for expert legal we need your stamp. (In Audible). the microphone.) So anything that you in a day. We don't for this to have interpretation, MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Sure. I will give you ten copies. You can hold onto that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just make sure you stamp -- MR. CHRISTIANSEN: I will give you Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 213 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ten copies. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail Seven copies. right. Mr. that you have client. Is there like Thank Barrett, we will make sure everything you need for your Mr. Barrett, I anything else that you would to say at this time? MR. BRESSLER: Not at this time. you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: believe you are here representing your client. So lets hear what you have to say and take it from there. MR. BARRETT: For the record, my name is Robert Barrett and I am an engineer and I am here representing Thomas McDermott. First thing that I have to say is relatively sad -- I do think it is working. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, it is. Just come up a little bit. Just to make sure we can all hear you and the transcript. MR. BARRETT: Oh, you are tape recording. Can you hear me now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Loud and clear. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 214 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BARRETT: Excellent. I will address these gentlemen since they are so concerned -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You need to address the Board. MR. BARRETT: I know. I will try and do both. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. As I was saying, when I was interrupted, it is rather sad today, that I had to report. I spoke to Thomas McDermott last night and at that time he was very agitated and I got the impression that his best friends had actually died. Today he called me again and I asked him if he was at a wake. He said, no. He didn't die but he is very, very seriously ill. He has had a massive heart attack. The long and short of it is, is that I can't be here this afternoon to address the Board. And I am going to have to leave it to you young man. Since I -- I was rather obliged. Anyway, his first message to you is that he is a lawyer, he is very concerned about that yes or no answer on the covenants and restrictions. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And he asked me to pass five copies of a document that he has prepared. I have not read it and perhaps you can add it to the record. MR. MS. true copy and he had it Office. BRESSLER: (In Audible). TOTH: I can tell you it is a of the covenants and restrictions certified by the Clerk's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can make copies. I will give this to you. MR. BRESSLER: (In Audible). (Far away from the microphone.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lets continue. I don't want to interrupt Mr. Barrett. MR. BARRETT: I am not a lawyer, I am doing this strictly as a favor. He is a lawyer. He did not empower me to give it to anyone else but I guess you have the authority to pass a copy to some other attorney. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. same sense that we are giving you information that they have. It is In the simply making sure of all the parties have copies Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 216 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of what is in our files. MR. BRESSLER: I am going to object to the second and third document. There is no foundation laid. The witness has said he doesn't know what they are. He obviously doesn't know where they came from. He does not know who prepared them. While they may bear a legend, this Board has no way of knowing whether they are current. Whether they were adopted. anything. Whether they were CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: question. We have C & R's have limited is before this Board. Let me ask a already established that impact, if any, what We did have the applicant at the last hearing introducing minutes from a meeting (In Audible) and restrictions, were those ever are they in form of minutes from covenants filed? Or a meeting? MR. BRESSLER: They are minutes from a meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: suffice in terms of making changes upon the original standard. Saying in the form of The minutes based that Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 217 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they could be -- MR. BRESSLER: That is exactly correct. And what I have here is something that I don't even know what it is. I have not seen these before and I think in the absence of any testimony why -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What Mr. McDermott -- MR. BRESSLER: I am looking at these second two documents. Without a foundation, those can't be considered by the Board, because they won't be knowing -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually, we already have these documents. We have this second document in already in our file. MR. BRESSLER: This does not represent anything that was adopted. So I am going to object to that without any foundation. I can tell you that I think it is an attempt to put something in front of the Board, it may be considered at some future date but to our knowledge, this is not evidence of anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So noted. Mr. Barrett, continue with what you Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 218 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 want to tell us. MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much. I have been an engineer for 49 years and the last 10, my work out here has been primarily, at least the last ten years in real estate matters. And it involves development of several waterfront homes. So I am well aware of all the excruciating concerns and problems one would have to go through with the -- particularly with the Department of Health and the New York DEC. So in looking at the areas for variance, I was struck particularly by the first one about these five criteria. And what you say is an undesirable change will not be produced -- will an undesirable change not be produced to the character of the neighborhood as a determinant to nearby properties if granted. Now, the answer that was given to you was a new home will be built in the same location as the existing home. So frankly, I think that is a very trivial answer. It is totally and utterly irrelevant from the point of view and character of the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 219 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BRESSLER: Could the Board note my objection. MR. BARRETT: I beg your pardon? MR. BRESSLER: Could the Board note my objection. I took the (In Audible) of the Board from what had happened the last time. We had exhausted testimony over the five factors. Everyone had spoken to them and my purpose for coming here today was to address those narrow issues that were raised the last time. So with all do respect, I am going to object to rehashing the five factors. So to open this door (In Audible) to go back and put all the same material back on the record and speak to those items that I think was a continued hearing for. I object to rehashing of what the Board said they did not want to do. MR. BARRETT: Well, I object to his objection. The situation is that I have not been advised of this hearing and I wasn't made aware of the opinions. Tom did his best and perhaps his best was not enough. The situation here -- excuse me, sir. Is that a property is being constructed that Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 220 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 is not in the character of the neighborhood. MR. BRESSLER: Objection. The Board had indicated we have been down this road. With all do respect and the same comment applies to me, as you have correctly noted to me, most of us are bound of what transpired there, as what had (In Audible). (Far away from the microphone.) MR. BRESSLER: I would object. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me clarify this. Mr. Barrett, what Mr. McDermott told us in his, he didn't say who, he had just told us that he would like to bring in an expert witness to talk about how the value of my property may be diminished as a result of the proposed home. In addition, he was concerned about the witness being able to talk about adverse impacts and any potential future installations of solar panels. I can tell you as an architect, that panels do not necessarily have to be located on roofs. There are many, many ways in which a site condition can shape the location of (In Audible) which there are Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 221 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 many. So I think primarily what I think this Board thought, his witness, which he has chosen you to do that, he was to being in someone who was an expert in property real estate. I know the both of you have been to the Zoning Board office and examined our file. In the interest of following up with what Mr. McDermott wanted this Board to hear, let me ask you, if you would tell us from your perspective a bit about potential of real estate, as an appraiser of real estate value. MR. BARRETT: Absolutely. I have been working out here on waterfront homes for the past 10 years. I have done a whole series of different designs to make those homes work in different environments. Which is different than 20 or 30 years ago. I am not an appraiser. I have made that point very clear. When an appraiser would come to us about the values of the home, I don't think I am overly unqualified to look at the one issue of a waterfront home that is different from other homes. A normal home, you have the price of the land and the cost Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 222 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 of the construction materials for the house. With a waterfront home, you have very various degrees of multipliers which are used to account for quality of the water view, the dock. It has been -- MR. BRESSLER: The witness has stated he has no appraisal knowledge towards hearings. He is not the witness to speak to the appraisal issue. I don't think he is qualified nor competent to speak about the quality of the value of the structure. He said he is an engineer. I am taking it at face value. (In Audible). MR. BARRETT: In answer to counsels comment, a proof in the pudding to the estate is not the appraisal. The proof is selling the property. That is the important thing. I have prepared a letter, which I am going to give you, which states in my opinion because of the work that I implore you to look at. I don't want to look at it anymore, I want you to look at it. I want you to take the information that is not being supplied by the architect. The front elevation of the home. The elevation of the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 223 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 side of the house in relation to the objectors view -- MR. BRESSLER: I am going to object -- noted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on. So MR. BARRETT: So noted. In my opinion, the presence of this very large house on the next doors property could change peoples views when they come to buy, say my clients property, and I will enter the letter into the record. I only have one copy. I have no electricity until 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. So I was unable to make any copies. MR. BRESSLER: I object to any letter being entered (In Audible) the witness has no expertise in the field and I ask it to be disregarded. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand your objection. I asked him to tell his background is -- us what MR. BARRETT: I haven't told you what my background is yet -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on. First Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 224 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of all, we do have images that the architect has supplied us with. Every one of the four elevations of the house. MR. BARRETT: Ma'am, I understand that. I didn't know that you were an architect. The problem comes of trying to take those elevations and trying to imagine those as a three dimensional structure on this lot. To my qualifications, I graduated honors, first class in 1958 and my Masters Degree followed two years later in Mechanical Engineering. I then spent the next 30 years of my life working in Mechanical Engineering. I hold approximately 25 patents. I have prepared many documents. (In Audible) exciting part of my life. So I have lots of experience and I do want to say, I couldn't have been here to counsel my client before he made the comments that he made, because I could have told him without even looking at the design, that something on his roof would be effected by a house on the north. Almost a waste of time. The only risk that I would see in a solar powered home is that if the Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 225 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 neighbor would have one too. And in the 2 event of another hurricane, of things blew 3 off the house and hit the house. I have had 4 that experience many times. 5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As a licensed real estate sales person, tell us what your opinion is, have you seen the architectural plans -- MR. BARRETT: thank the ZBA office copies, I believe it of the architectural Yes, Ma'am. I have to for making the 37 was. On the question plans, I spent four hours with the Planning Board here and we were talking about the problems associated with trying to get the truth to projects being prepared. Some say go to Planning first. Some say otherwise. From my experience, the only way to do it, one has to go to the DEC and also, if there is water involved, and even if more important, if there is no water involved. You must go to the Suffolk County Department of Health unit. And to give an example, I have looked at the architect drawing and he is suggesting that he use a leaching pool -- Zoning Board of Appeals Septer~er 1, 2011 226 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BRESSLER: Just note my objection. We are now going beyond the scope of solar panels. (In Audible). We have heard him say about solar and that it has no impact. (In Audible). (Far away from the microphone.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a standard and he has already said that he would have advised his client at a previous hearing -- MR. BRESSLER: Yes. MR. CHRISTIANSEN: He didn't let me finish. My point is this -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Wow, wow, wait. MR. BARRETT: I understand that. When someone comes before ou with a proposal before they have gone to the Health Department and we all know, that the leaching field is going to have to be on the north side of the property. And the question is the last one that I did, I did a year ago, I had the same water table, as I suspect here. They do not -- you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: have to look at us. Mr. Barrett, Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 227 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry. Even if those points are made -- MR. BRESSLER: They are shown there. This is a non issue. MR. BARRETT: Let me finish. On that point, they have four leaching pools and two reserves. When I just finished, we finished up with nine leaching pools. We needed a lot -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Barrett, I really must say -- MR. BARRETT: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are only two issues before us. We restrictions generously willing to listen from comments from the neighbor. We have already heard concerns from solar and he said, he thought that the house proposed next door was going to adverse impact on his property because he didn't object to the two-story's. He just thought it was too close. He doesn't object to the house. There is no lot coverage before us. There are two things before us, we have a bulkhead setback, which is currently nonconforming and it Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 228 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will become less non confirming, if approved. And we ave a front yard setback, which is currently nonconforming and will become less nonconforming, if approved. We do not have a side yard variance before US. looked 2,631 lot. MR. BARRETT: The drawing that I at shows lot covers proposed is square feet, which is 20.39% of the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Building just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: you coming in. Mr. anything else that MR. BRESSLER: I am inclined since the Health an issue before the Board, wants to hear testimony about CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I I appreciate Bressler, is there you would like to add? generally Department is not if the Board that -- don't think Department has cited that the 20.39% is not enough to write a Notice of Disapproval regarding lot coverage MR. BARRETT: I didn't know that. I didn't know that. I don't have anything further to say. Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 229 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it is relevant. MR. BRESSLER: Thank you. you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the have any questions of the applicant? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. We thank Board at anything that has been submitted, within the next week, I have no objection. MR. BRESSLER: The only thing I would ask for the Board's indulgence for a minute and a half -- Mr. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Barrett has no objection to closing the look CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no further questions or comments, I am going to make a motion to close this hearing, subject to receipt of survey with the actual spot plan of the subject property adjoining houses and if you would like to have an opportunity within a week or two, to respond to anything that has been submitted, and I will give him the same opportunity. The Board would be willing to do that to show a polite way to the interested parties. If anyone wants to Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 230 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 record. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bressler, you going to take a few moments MR. BRESSLER: Just five minutes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just let the record reflect that Mr. Goehringer has left the room alone. So we are going to have a copy of a letter that was submitted by Mr. Barrett, to all Board members to and we and reserve comments Mr. Bressler, the applicant's agent are going to close this hearing decision, subject to receipt of you might want to make about that letter MR. BRESSLER: By tomorrow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: By tomorrow. are will not burden the record any further. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will make every effort to do that. As noted earlier, it would have to be two weeks from today to September 15th at our special meeting. And receipt of stamped site plan also by tomorrow. MR. BRESSLER: And we ask for your indulgence in a speedy decision for reasons of which I have stated on the record and I Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 231 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Okay. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry. Listening to what Mr. Bressler just said, is it possible for me to obtain a copy of any remarks that he makes? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Absolutely. MR. BARRETT: I will come by tomorrow? later end of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can come by afternoon or Monday morning. MR. BRESSLER: I will get it by the the day. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can call the office tomorrow and see if it's in. MR. BARRETT: Okay. I don't have any electricity so I can't get it by e-mail or any other way. I will come by. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: office closes at 4:00 o'clock. MR. BARRETT: Just before o'clock. Thank you very much. to Mr. Okay. The 4:00 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am going to move to close this hearing, subject to receipt by tomorrow a reply by Mr. Bressler Barrett's letter and seven copies Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 232 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 stamped of a lot plan architect showing the the adjoining houses. receive a copy of Mr. So moved. by the applicants subject property and And Mr. Barrett is to Bressler's comments. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. (See Minutes for Resolution.) (Whereupon, the public hearings for September 1, 2011 concluded.) Zoning Board of Appeals September 1, 2011 233 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and ~ate~cord of the Hearings. Signatu~~_~~ ~ ~,l Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter PO Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 Date: September 25, 2011