Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/06/2012 Hearing1 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 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall Southold, New York December 6, 2012 10:25 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN Chairperson/Member GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member GEORGE HORNING - Member VICKI TOTH - Secretary JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter P.O. Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 (631)-338-1409 X X RECEIVED BOARD OF APPEALS 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: INDEX OF HEARINGS Michael & Emily Kavourias, %6606 Denis & Suzana Lipovac, #6607 Chloem, LLC, #6608 Robert Corazzini, #6609 Robert M. Schreiber, #6610 Daniel Devito, #6611 John M. & Frances C. Divello, %6613 Page: 3-40 40-47 47-55 55-71 71-85 85-111 127-135 111-126 December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 4 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEARING #6606 MICHAEL & EMILY KAVOURIAS MR. MACRINA: I apologize for not being here last month. Just do to the storm, I live in Stony Brook and we had no power. I tried to contact the office and just assumed that it would be -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. MR. MACRINA: I would like to first start off to talk about how we got there, to where we are. Why we need a variance. We spent a good year trying to avoid a variance. As you can see, the way the house is situated on the lot, and preexisting and nonconforming, the front yard setback is right to the middle of the house. It's very difficult to try and design a substantial renovation. My clients are looking for more living space. The house is a modest 1400 square foot ranch. They wanted to add more square footage. They wanted to add a nice master suite and just more living space. The living room is a very small. So we attempted to keep the master bedroom on the first floor and even December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 5 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 attempted to keep all the space on the back of the house to avoid a variance. When you get to large additions, the roof line becomes complicated, and if you look at the existing house, and I do have a picture here. So working with that and putting a larger investment into a project and keep that same facade, it just didn't make any sense. We did many, many sketches for many months. We decided that the procedure that would make the most sense to do, is a second floor addition. Where the second floor addition of the house -- pretty much, if I touch the roof line, then I would require a variance. It is outside the setback. So we decided to do a second floor addition, which gave us an opportunity to have panoramic water views, that the house does not have now. So obviously that is a big plus. So the second floor is to have a nice master suite. We didn't go over the whole entire footprint. We went over part of it. Gave us a bathroom, bedroom, closet, full loft area and a sitting area. But mostly, a larger roof deck as well. And December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 6 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 also what it does, it creates a nicer aesthetic from the street, from both streets. And really started increasing the value of that neighborhood. In that neighborhood there is a lot more renovations like this. The lot -- the subdivision is most ranches. So by doing this, the second floor -- we are not increasing the level of nonconformity of the existing setback. We are building on top of what is there, but we are -- there is an existing deck that is only about ten feet from the property line. We are looking to reduce that by two feet, pulling it into the house, and increasing that setback to 12 feet, but adding a roof on top of it. That helps break up the scale of the facade and helps keep that nice cottagey feel to the east-end. That is what we are looking to do, and increasing the protection for the front of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just interrupt you for one second. MR. MACRINA: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks as December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 7 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 though the existing, says proposed second floor addition -- it looks like a setback from Miriam Road, and the site plan is 21 feet? MR. MACRINA: Yes, correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you are proposing a new covered roof porch, which would create a front yard setback of 11.11 feet; is that correct? MR. MACRINA: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are proposing to reduce the nonconforming front yard setback? MR. MACRINA: Yeah, the porch does, but if you look at the existing survey, which I am not sure if it was submitted to you or not, I have a copy here that I can show you if you want to see it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is the survey that you're going to show us? MR. MACRINA: The survey was prepared by Joseph Ingegno Land Surveyor and it was dated back in 2004, August 30, 2004. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't think that we have that. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MACRINA: What this shows is the existing deck in the front of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. What we have from you is this one based on the surveyors. And I am showing 21 feet to the existing dwelling and a reduction to 11.11 to the proposed porch. And the 25.1 stays the same from the Inlet? MR. MACRINA: Correct. What we are doing there, we are just reinforcing the roof. You know a new roof design over that part of the house. We're not decreasing that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. MR. MACRINA: In this neighborhood, I should say at the intersection of Miriam and Inlet Drive, this is the subject house right here. The house to the north on the right side has a setback that is only -- the road down of 12 feet from the property line. And a deck that looks like 8 feet from the property. And as I go around the area it appears to me that the majority of the homes are, I would say about 25 of the average setback. So we would be December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 completely out of context of the neighborhood. Also I know, in this case, the asphalt starts 15 feet pass the property line. So it does appear to have a nice front lawn from the asphalt. MEMBER HORNING: Sir, on what road are you referring to? MR. MACRINA: Both. I'm sorry, the area that we're encroaching on. MEMBER HORNING: Miriam Road? MR. MACRINA: Miriam Road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the house to the north on Miriam Road. You're showing character of the neighborhood. Are we talking about two different things? MR. MACRINA: That would be the northwest. The house to the northwest. MEMBER DINIZIO: Would that be on Inlet Road or Miriam? MR. MACRINA: That would be on Inlet Road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to talk very loudly. Okay. So the house to the northwest, has a front yard setback of 12 feet from the property line to Inlet? December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 10 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MACRINA: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are now talking about the character of the neighborhood? MR. MACRINA: Yes. I would also mention, where we are proposing that front porch on Miriam Drive, approximately 15 feet on the survey, from the asphalt to the property line. It has that approach that it has a nice frontage. In this proposed application, there is also an existing -- preexisting nonconforming accessory structure, detached garage. The Building Department explained to me that that garage should have been further back on the property. It does looking to remove garage that meets something that to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: not have a CO. We are it and build an attached current zoning. That is add to the application. So let's just look at the two variances that are before us here. One is a front yard setback at 11.92. The Notice of Disapproval says 11.11. MR. MACRINA: It's 11 foot 11 inches. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 11 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 then a front yard setback of 25.08 feet from Inlet, where the code requires 40. The site plan shows 25.1. So there are two front yard setbacks. The one that is 25 feet from Inlet is to be maintained. The one along Miriam, you're proposing to reduce from the 21 feet to approximately 12 feet? MR. MACRINA: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, let's just take a look at a letter that I am sure you received from the Mattituck Parks District. Did you receive a copy of that letter? MR. MACRINA: No, I have not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am surprised that you didn't get one. Let's make sure that you get a copy. We need to address some of the concerns that they voice in that letter. MR. MACRINA: So there is more than I am not prepared for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am just going to go over three points in the letter and obviously there will be testimony, and you will have an opportunity to respond. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 12 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It would appear from this letter dated October 26, 2012, that part of your clients chain link fence, about 20 feet, is off of their property and on the Mattituck Parks District property, that it be removed. and they are requesting MR. MACRINA: Correct. Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That of course is a fence enclosing an in-ground swimming pool, that is required by code. They are then proposing to regenerate an area that was cleared by the applicant that they consider to be Park property. And thirdly, removal of a barrier fencing or other obstruction that is erected at the end of Miriam Road, which needs to be open for emergency access. Those are the three points that are brought up in this letter. MR. MACRINA: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so the record is clear. MR. MACRINA: Can I just ask for a description of that Item 3, I didn't understand what we're talking about actually? December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to actually -- since we now know that there someone here representing the Parks I work for the order, of the District, what I think would just be best is if he testified for a moment and explain the details that -- MR. MACRINA: Details. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then perhaps says what you would like to say. If you would please just enter your name into the record? MR. PROKOP: I would be happy to. It's David Prokop, with an office at 131 Route 25A, Rocky Point, New York. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very much. MR. PROKOP: Park District. In reverse the third item relative the details construction, consult with the perform the inspection me that there is an I would have to Commissioner's. They and then they advise obstruction there, erected. So I would have to get more details and get back to the architect. Otherwise, I was appearing December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 today to make sure the letter was received and make myself available for any questions from his agent or from the Board relative to the request. The one relative to the relocation of the fence that was on the district property back to the property line, 20 foot encroachment. Otherwise to insure that there is some litigation with respect to re-vegetation of the Park District thirdly, so that we property that was cleared. And that the obstructions be removed could have emergency vehicles access our property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: interesting because the old architect has just given flagpole -- I don't know an obstruction. It's but it's along the -- of their property. MR. PROKOP: I don't is. to You know it's survey that the us, shows a if that would be not in Miriam Road outside the boundary know what that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. We are going have to find out what it is. MEMBER HORNING: The fence is not December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 15 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 shown. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, it is. Here George. Not on the old one. This is what the architect gave us. You have it in your packet. Right here, it's off the property line. This plan shows it. MR. MACRINA: The applicant just needs some direction in what re-vegetation is necessary with respect to that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we know, A, what the nature of any might be so that the applicant need to obstruction will the might what it is. what kind of that you're address it. I don't know Secondly, we need to know appropriate re-vegetation talking about. And -- MR. MACRINA: I just want to make sure that whatever we provide is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the surveyor have to show you exactly where to move chain link fence on the property. MEMBER HORNING: Does the public have access to that side of the property? MR. PROKOP: Yes, they do. Not that it's planned for public access there, but December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 to the extent there was a block on Inlet Road, that is the road that accesses the beach. This is a road for emergency vehicle to reach that person. MEMBER HORNING: And what is the purpose of the chain link along Miriam? that -- Is MR. PROKOP: Oh, the fence. That is the property owner's fence. MEMBER HORNING: I am talking about it's blocked off access onto Miriam. MR. PROKOP: That is part of what the obstruction consist of. I have to find out more information about what has been erected there. What I could do is provide follow-up letter, CC'ing the agent, and indicate what it is that needs to be removed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. fairly minor. It might just be It could be landscaping Why don't we ask for all we know. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: would know? MR. PROKOP: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You think Gerry December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 17 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 him? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We could ask him to come in testify. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Why not? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It will expedite the process. MR. PROKOP: He was one of the Commissioner's that performed the inspection. So he knows. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: He has recused himself from the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: From the application. He doesn't have to recuse himself to represent the Park District. MR. PROKOP: He was a witness. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Vicki, would you go out and ask him to come in. MS. TOTH: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I also want to point out and make sure that you are aware of this. According to code, to have a legal pool enclosure, it must be on the applicants property. So even the swimming pool enclosure is questionable because part of that fence is not on their property. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 18 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 seems to be a relatively straightforward thing. When I did inspection, I wondered about that. There is beautiful evergreens that give privacy. It's really not on their property. Okay. Gerry who is a Board member and who has recused himself, and is now appearing before the Board, at the Board's request to testify as the Mattituck Park's Commissioner and to clarify the three points that counsel who is representing the park has brought to the attention of the Board. So with regard to point %3, the applicant has some barrier that they own obstructing emergency access at the end of Miriam Road, and needs to be unobstructed for emergency vehicles to access the Park District's property. Could you tell us what exactly is the nature of that obstruction? MR. GOEHRINGER: Well, I am not positive that it's this particular applicants obstruction on that aspect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry, back up a second. Just for the matter of the Decen~er 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 public record, would you please just state your name? MR. GOEHRINGER: Gerard Goehringer, I am presently the acting Chairperson of the Mattituck Park District. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. MR. GOEHRINGER: We have had over the years significant problems with people dumping at the end of Miriam Road. Excuse me. What is at the end of Miriam Road as a barrier, to my knowledge, what was put there by the Town. So that is one of the issues there. However, it was brought to our attention, nor have I seen a survey, that indicates that the fence is actually on the neighbor's property. The one that applying for this variance at this time. We were -- it has been the determination the Commissioner's that presently sit, the possibility is that there is encroachment by this fence and some shrubbery on that property. But in the nature of the Park District, which is a public entity, we aren't concerned by any encroachments. I am not necessarily seen is of that December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 20 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 survey that has indicated that and that is certified to any particular individual, either the owners of this property or that the Town has supplied to us by a certified surveyor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is clear about the encroachment of the fence. That, I think, you can see on the survey. And as a Board, we're going to be concerned that all of that (In Audible) is on the applicants property. MR. PROKOP: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because there is some of it that is clearly not on the Park District, and on the shoulder or Inlet Road. So that is that. There were two other points. One was, any kind of a barrier that prevents the access that is owned by this applicant. We need to be absolutely clear what that is and where that is located. MR. GOEHRINGER: I don't believe that that is a possibility that that may exist. Only the standpoint of the fence being on our property, which would inhibit us or December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 fire vehicle -- and I am not speaking for the Mattituck Fire District, which of course, I am also a member of. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am just trying to figure out how we can address point #3. Is that an issue or is that not an issue? MR. GOEHRINGER: We don't know if the fence was moved back onto the property, it's a possibility that we would be onto the neighbor's property. We wouldn't still be able to gain access. Not necessarily by truck, vehicular access, by the wild shrubbery that exist on the District property. We have had fires there based upon -- not necessarily from this applicant's property, but during the 4h of July holidays. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's take a look at #2, re-vegetation of an area that has been cleared by the applicant. Let me see what my notes say from field inspection. You know, there is an actual fence with a gate to it that goes over to that cleared area. MEMBER HORNING: At the end of Miriam. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So my question is, and I am now addressing the applicant's agent, have you had any idea of what they are using that cleared area for? I mean, there is a gate in the chain link fence so that they can access that area. Like a clearing has been made. It's not shown on your survey. MR. MACRINA: No, this is -- this is -- the gate that is facing the park? I am not too sure what that is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I believe it's for the side yard. I am talking about, if you look at the easterly property line, there is a chain link fence there. MR. MACRINA: I didn't see a gate there. It's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But there is. actually toward the rear yard, but there is an actual gate in the chain link that goes over to a cleared area. I believe that must be what the Park District is talking about. MR. MACRINA: I mean, there is a private property on the southeast corner of December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 access. Maybe the property, maybe they neighborly. I don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't think that it was in that lot line. MR. MACRINA: You think it was on the Park District side? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. MR. MACRINA: Do you want me -- well, the fence is getting relocated anyway. I will have them eliminate the gate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There shouldn't be any gate enclosure because they shouldn't be having access to Park -- MR. MACRINA: So no gate access. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Correct. However, I still wonder what they are using it for. It didn't appear to look like it was being used for anything but it was a clearing, and there wasn't any furniture in it. Just empty, but what we need to understand from the Park District is, what kind of vegetation you are requesting. Do you want to just let it go back to scrub or do you want to actually to have some -- maybe some plantings? December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 24 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. PROKOP: I will with native plantings. I be the best way to go. MEMBER HORNING: Can Statement #3 in your send a proposal think that would you clarify this letter. "Applicant to remove any barrier fencing or other obstruction they have erected at the end Miriam Road." MR. PROKOP: I can make it even easier, we are going to withdraw #3. discussing it with Mr. Goehringer it's a possibility that it was there and it of only originated from the Kavourias property. It's primarily a town structure that is there, miscellaneous dumping. We can't identify the Kavourias being the party for that. So we will withdraw #3. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what we need from you is the specifics about -- actually we don't need about which portions of the fence because frankly, the whole fence has to be on their property. MR. MACRINA: So it will go to the back corner of the house and meet with the property line and then around. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 25 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Wherever it is relocated, it all has to be on the property, period. That will take care of that. We just need from you on what kind of vegetation. MR. PROKOP: I will supply that. That's fine. MR. MACRINA: So re-vegetate up to the property line; correct? MR. PROKOP: I would like to show it on the existing survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's fine. As long as it's a legitimate survey where it is clear and we can all read it. So we know specifically what you are talking about. So they can conform to what the Park District is requesting. Is that all right with everyone? MR. MACRINA: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We ought to get back to the variance before us. It is very clear that you are going to maintain the preexisting 25 foot. Please address any need to reduce the already nonconforming front yard setback of 21 feet to 11 feet? December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 MR. MACRINA: That is something as I propose to -- it helps create a better scale for the home to have a porch, that nice shadow line, the lower roof ease. It works well with this area because there is not large homes in the area. It's more smaller. The covered porch helps bring in the scale as they approach the home. Also that side of the home is facing the Sound. It helps bring in a little bit of protection to the house as well. And that was really the reason. It was more aesthetic functionality. Unfortunately, just to put a covered front porch on that house, the way that the house was positioned back in the 60's, you know, it being on an angle like that and approaching Miriam Road, it makes it difficult. with The only thing that I can say is that there was a deck there and was even closer that 11.11 -- 11.92. And we are reducing that a little bit. The only difference is, we will have a roof on top. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the deck isn't there now. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 27 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. MACRINA: It is there now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is there now? MR. MACRINA: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's a walkway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a walkway. MR. MACRINA: It is elevated at that corner. MEMBER DINIZIO: Does it have a CO? MR. MACRINA: I believe so. MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe we should see. MR. MACRINA: That could be correct. don't know. I believe it did have a CO. MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn't find one. MR. MACRINA: The records were a little vague. I was trying to find it. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's only 1998. MR. MACRINA: The last time the I the there was in 2004 for their inspector was swimming pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I suspect that you started to do something that could enhance more, talking to us about the character of the neighborhood relative to conforming front yard setbacks. MR. MACRINA: Correct. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 28 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Which is what the Board would be looking at in reducing an already nonconforming front yard setback. MR. MACRINA: I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You point out one example, which I guess is the house to the northwest. Are there others in that neighborhood as well? Or would you like time to go and research it? MR. MACRINA: No, I have looked -- I just looked at that intersection because that is what you do see when you are standing in front of the house. Pretty one property to the north was about 28 much feet, and the one to the south -- southwest is 22 feet to Miriam. They are all closer to the existing setback. I do believe that that one house to the northwest would be the only one that is comparable to reduce setback that I am proposing for the porch. MEMBER HORNING: Madam Chairperson, I ask something? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please. MEMBER HORNING: Don't we have some can December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 idea of an average setback given a certain distance up and down the street? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, we do. MEMBER HORNING: Can we ask them to work with that and give us what the average setbacks really are? MR. MACRINA: My calculation, it would be somewhere like 25 feet. That would be the average setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So he has already looked at that. allows you to 300 feet from In other words, the code take along the street from either direction and average setback and establish that -- MR. MACRINA: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would be relatively conforming to the neighborhood. MR. MACRINA: Okay. itself, the short road, On Miriam Road there is not many homes on that road. Like the average setback is maybe like mid-20's. So it doesn't help me. So the only one, was the one on Inlet, the one house that we are talking about is the one house on the corner. You know, the most important part December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 30 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 this second floor. would just -- much, I could bit. I can't do that would look application is the addition to the To maintain the 21 feet. I if the 12 foot is asking too reduce the porch a little anything architecturally nice and cut it off. I think it would not look good. So if the 12 feet is asking too much, then we can maybe reduce the porch another 2 feet maybe or just eliminate it completely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the point that when you are talking about, it's now a one-story and it's 21 feet, give or take from the road. When you talk about adding a second-story and moving it closer to Miriam Road, you are establishing a much larger presence on that road. MR. MACRINA: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then a one-story. So I think, this Board is required by law to grant the minimum amount reasonable. MR. MACRINA: Sure. I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we would be looking to do that, I think. MR. MACRINA: The porch is a one-story December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 structure with a low sloping roof. The two-story will start back at 21. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, that helps, but I would suggest that that setback either be maintained and closely as possible, and perhaps a shallow or walkway or porch. MR. MACRINA: I can do a large overhang maybe. Maybe a large overhang. We just don't -- you know, we want everything to look blended. You want everything to look like it was built this way. We don't want it to look like it was added or anything like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I do understand what you are saying. I think this Board does at least from an architectural perspective. But from a zoning perspective, the setback that would allow you to accomplish with an aesthetic or accomplish the setback requirement. In other words reducing it minimum to where it is now. MR. MACRINA: If I was to put a two foot overhang by the front door, when it comes off on that angle, it will probably December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 32 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 decrease the setback from 12 feet to about 15 feet. Then after that, I would probably have to eliminate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the Board have any other questions? Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I have questions. Let me ask you this. Is there any reason why you can't take the second-story, and leave the house the way that it is and put it on the proposed garage, as well as the one-story addition? MR. MACRINA: I am sure I can. When you have this -- the pictures are there -- MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me preface that. The house has existed there for many, many years. No one seems to be complaining that it's an eyesore. I grant that you have every right to do what you like to do on your property but what you are asking for, in my opinion, is a lot. Okay. Not only has this Board made a decision for the 21 feet but you also have to take into consideration the bulk of the house. Basically, this house sits, at least, 3/4 in a nonconforming area. And you are asking December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 us to double that side yard in that nonconforming area. That's a huge variance that you are asking us, when you look in the context of what you are asking about this Board. I am not too concerned about a hip roof. MR. MACRINA: I understand where you are coming from, and I do agree that the covered porch was a push. There is no doubt about it, but I feel that the -- because the position is very oddly location on the site, to deny a homeowner to maintain that setback and (In Audible) square footage, and give them good views of the water. They have invested a large sum of money to do this renovation, and at the end of the day the house is still going to look the same with that hip roof on one side and that gable on the other. You want the house to have nice curve appeal. I feel like the only way to accomplish that is with the second floor addition. The porch is something that we would like to see, but is certainly something that we can remove from the application to allow us to build a December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 34 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 second floor where we are proposing. MEMBER DINIZIO: I am not denying you if you want to maintain the 21 feet. You can have the second story. You know what I mean, there is plenty of area to build on this piece of property. I mean, there is plenty of area. Basically you are building the same amount of footage in the back of this house. You can put a second-story on and gain an extra room that you are entitled to without the use of a variance in any way. MR. MACRINA: We have attempted that in many different designs. At the end of the day it really just looks horrible. The balance is off. When you do a second floor, you can just put to one side of the house and have a two-story element -- a ranch. It would look like the ugliest house on the block. You got to have balance. You have to put all your weight and bulk in the middle of the house. It just looks -- it would destroy the value of the neighborhood. We don't want to do that. We want to increase the value of the December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 35 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 neighborhood. We are trying to do the right thing. It's just unfortunate that the house is in a very odd position. That is the card that we were dealt with. The part that is going to be two-story's, and just keep that in mind. It's probably a little hard to see on the drawing -- the part that is 21 feet, that's a little open deck with a balustrade. It is still an one-story. The two-story is a little further back. So like -- MEMBER DINIZIO: 23. MR. MACRINA: 23 is where it starts, right. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's supposed to be 40. MR. MACRINA: Just please understand that we did try for years, I tried sketching to make -- to keep this design -- when you build that addition to the east, it staggers. The roof line were not coming together. It looked like a mess. There were some designs that could work but at the end of the day, it didn't work. Not worth the money to invest in this large renovation December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 36 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 do the right thing for the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me do this because we are really running behind. Just to summarize, you have two nonconforming front yards, and the Board is looking at the nature of those two nonconforming front yards and recognizing by adding a second story, you are creating a substantial impact on those nonconforming front yards. Our goal is to work with you and also to respect the fact that we don't want to have this huge impact. The second-story creates the impact. Typically, if you can create a porch that is going to reduce that front yard, even though it's one-story, will have a substantial impact. MR. MACRINA: I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so the Board is clear on what they are thinking. I want to ask Ken if he has any questions on this? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to address this application? December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 MEMBER HORNING: I have a couple of minor questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. MEMBER HORNING: I would like to see a written down average of the setbacks on Inlet Drive in reference to the neighborhood taken from the real figures of what adjoining properties are using for a setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Miriam? MEMBER HORNING: On MR. MACRINA: Inlet Drive, we're So our second work with the You want that in Inlet Drive. Please keep in mind, on only replacing the roof. floor addition is 38.11. To existing structure -- MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, there is not much that you can do about that but there are other factors that can be used. You are asking us to increase the bulk of that house and you are asking us to rely on some things here that may not even have CO's. MR. MACRINA: The deck? MEMBER DINIZIO: The deck. Any other variances that you are basing your setback December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 On, you for we would like to need to research US. MEMBER HORNING: to get to the built in what MR. MACRINA: 60's, '61 maybe. see that. You know, that a little bit more Jim and I are trying root of this. The house was year, can you tell us? I believe in the early MEMBER HORNING: something about building a building permit MR. MACRINA: there was building don't know -- MEMBER HORNING: I thought I saw additions in 1958, around then. You're right. In 7/'58 with alterations. I If you can submit something that built, whether or not. And the clients in what have move says when the house was it was built prior to code house was purchased by your year? MR. MACRINA: I don't MEMBER HORNING: 1999, that verified too. CHAIRPERSON this along. the audience who would I would like to WEISMAN: I am going to Is there anyone else in like to address this December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no further questions or comments, I am going to make a motion to close this hearing to receipt of the following things: 1) we are going to get from the Mattituck Park District a description of re-vegetation of Park property. 2) we are going to get from the applicant's agent, a listing of the average front yard setback along Inlet Drive and Miriam Drive, and 3) if you are able to find any other front yard setback variances that were granted in and around that area. I believe the Board will have sufficient information to proceed. That should all be submitted to Vicki at our office as soon as possible. Vicki is saying, if you would like some assistance with our office for variances in the neighborhood, because we have the data available to be of help. MR. MACRINA: Sure. Thank you very much. MEMBER HORNING: And if you could find December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 40 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 built before Was it out whether the house was 19477 MR. MACRINA: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: pre-zoning? MR. MACRINA: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That, believe not is a motion on my part. Is there a second? MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? it MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6607 - DENIS & SUZANA LIPOVAC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next hearing before the Board is for Denis an Suzana Lipovac. This is for #6607. Request for variances from Article XXIII Code Section 280-124, based on an application for building permit and the Building Inspector's September 4, 2012 Notice of December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 41 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 Disapproval regarding proposed accessory in-ground swimming pool, at; 1) more than the code permitted maximum 20% lot coverage; located at: 5220 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. Is there someone here represent this application? Please state your name record? MR. LIPOVAC: L-I-P-O-V-A-C. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: have no green cards. submit? L I POVAC: CHAIRPERSON you for the Sure. Denis Lipovac, can MR. Thank you. We Is there anything Yes, I am sorry. WEISMAN: Okay. Let's to that take a look here. Sir, I believe you are proposing at 16'x36' swimming pool? MR. LIPOVAC: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That will create a 25% lot coverage, where the code requires 20%. MR. LIPOVAC: We have -- actually according to the survey, it will give it 23%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It shows that the December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 existing house and deck is at 23%. MR. LIPOVAC: It is. We would remove the deck. With the pool put it, it would actually increase it by 15 square feet. That is if the pool goes in, and the deck removed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what your application says. It says that you are going to remove the deck and increase the footprint. It will be a trade-off by putting in the swimming pool. It will go from 23.3%, which is existing, to 22.1%? MR. LIPOVAC: Correct. Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Notice of Disapproval shows a lot coverage proposed at 25% but that is because -- MR. LIPOVAC: That was an estimate before the survey was done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before the survey was done. correct MR. will be MEMBER HORNING: And what is the figure? LIPOVAC: 23 -- with the pool, it 23.1%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's a wash December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 43 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 really. MR. LIPOVAC: Pretty much. And as far as the pool, there is really not going to be any masonry around it, just the coping around it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On field inspection, it is pretty clear that your backyard has no trees. It's pretty much grass. No land disturbance. You have a completely enclosed backyard. MR. LIPOVAC: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any questions, George? MEMBER HORNING: He is going to remove the deck; correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. The LWRP, did we get anything? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It wasn't required. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: are going -- When you said you you are not going to require December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 44 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 anything around the swimming pool, that is usually not the case. You will be aware that anything at ground level is not included lot coverage. So if you decide to put some patio blocks around it -- MR. LIPOVAC: My wife just wants a coping around the pool. That is what she is looking for. I will have to add grass. MEMBER DINIZIO: Good luck to that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is why I am brining it up. Anything that you do put around it has to be at ground level, if decide to put anything. you MR. LIPOVAC: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am not seeing a drywell for pool de-watering on the survey? MR. LIPOVAC: I guess the removal of the water? I am not aware. I can find out from the pool company. If that has to be installed, that is not a problem. We are putting in a filtration system, so we don't have to do the backwash or anything like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: require it. Some pools don't December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 MR. LIPOVAC: The pool company, they only use this one. There is no backwash. DE. It's not a sand filter. MEMBER HORNING: You would never take the water out of the pool? MR. LIPOVAC: I am not aware of that. They would handle the opening and the closing of the pool for me. From what I gather in the winter time, you would have to reduce some of the water. If I need a drywell put in for that, that is not a problem at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can we do this? It's not shown on here. We need to know whether or not water is going to be removed. If so, is it removed by your pool company into a holding tank or will it require a drywell to be installed. The other question -- you can get that for us in writing -- MR. LIPOVAC: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would be there is helpful. location MR. The other question is, for pumping here. LIPOVAC: That would be along the No no December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 46 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 house next to the a-track equipment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Which is -- might be this black box. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it by the bilco door? MR. LIPOVAC: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We usually require, because it's near an adjacent neighbor property line, that it be in a sound proof enclosure. MR. LIPOVAC: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just as well for you. Just to mitigate any sound. It can get noisy. Okay. Any other questions from the Board? Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Nope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else in the audience that wishes to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no further questions or comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of information regarding the pool December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 de-watering circumstances from Arthur Edwards, the installer of the pool. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING ~6608 - CHLOEM, LLC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Chloem, LLC. That is #6608. Request for Special Exception per Article XIII Section 280-55B (1 & 5) to operate a restaurant and fish market Located this I am reflect in a Marine II (MII) at: 64755 Route 25, Is there someone here to application? MR. KEIL: Yes. My name representing the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let the that there was a previous District. Greenport. represent is Brett Keil, record Special December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 Exception granted by this Board in 2009, #6332, which allowed a restaurant, and now you are looking to have about 16% of that building for a 509 square feet on the restaurant portion, as a very small, kind of take-out restaurant with 84% operating as a fish market. Both of them are permitted uses in the MII Zone. MR. KEIL: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We also have information from the Planning Board indicating this application will not require a full site plan review by the Planning Board. It had previously been granted. Do you have a copy of the current Planning Board letter? MR. KEIL: No, I don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will get you one. I did request that, so we had an updated -- the applicant by the way, submitted a very detailed explanation, an affidavit of sort indicating exactly what would be going on. We do have a letter -- an indirect letter from an adjacent December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 49 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 neighbor saying that at the moment, some of the sound emanating from the dumpster at the fish market, it's only -- a trailer that is operating with a legal permit that has been extended by the Board. You know, causing some discomfort and smells and odors. Requesting that we grant the variance as quickly as possible. MR. KEIL: Braun Seafood. CHAIRPERSON MR. KEIL: over 23 years people. I also have a letter from WEISMAN: Sure. They have been working and he does hire local for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's nice to have in the record. While Vicki is making a copy of the comments from the Planning Board dated November 27, 2012, let me just mention for the record and for you as the agent, it says, they're requesting that you submit a photometric plan -- MR. KEIL: One has been submitted, actually at the beginning of the week it was submitted. I worked with the planners upstairs and they thought everything was in December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 there. Showing the shields. The other thing was, we put a thing in, within one hour of closing, lights will be off around the perimeter of the property. I think it's only four or five lights itself around the building will be left on for security purposes only. And I think the other thing that they had was the parking in the front of the building, and we are going to put parking signs in the front of the building that is the parking area. We can't put any striping on the road or on the pavement because the State -- there is a tide line in the front of the property, and if you do anything to encroach that, you're basically doing something not allowed to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I also noticed that on your site plan, you do have egress and ingress marked to avoid problems on that road. MR. KEIL: Yes, that is why we did that. We also made sure there is enough room for breaking as you come around this corner. We have also talked about clearing on State road and you are December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 51 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some of back of the neighbor's property, which would help cut down the overgrowth and maintain the grass length. So that people, when they pull out, they don't have a problem seeing out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that addresses that concerns. I think they are all satisfactorily taken care of. We do have our prior decision, a couple of written conditions of the Planning Board. It seems that you are taking care of all of their curb concerns. I am just seeing if the Board needed to review it with you for the public record, and see if there is a need to carry over any of those conditions. Well, certainly #1 is moot. There is no change to the site unless approved by the Planning Board. That's fine. No changes to the nonconforming setback or height of the existing building. That is fine. That is not being proposed. MR. KEIL: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail garbage generated by the restaurant shall be contained on site and dumpsters that are December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 52 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 visually screened and fenced in area with proper rodent control. That can be carried over. MR. KEIL: Yes. And to note that the in the northwest dumpster is going to be corner of the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the privacy screening at a minimum of five feet in height, planted eastern and western property evergreen four or along the line. MR. KEIL: Yes. We had on there because of the proximity to the fence, at the time we were going to put a 6 foot stockade fence. We talked about putting in arborvitae or something like that. Number one, we have a deer problem. Two, the vegetation on the back side, the north side of the property would overgrow all the plants and choke them right out. And if you put them on the property line, it would be encroaching on the neighbor's property. So I think the best way would be a six foot fence, stockade fence down there for privacy, so that they don't have to look at all the lights. And they don't -- they have December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 53 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a nicer view and it will stop the vegetation. Once the vegetation goes to the top, you can just cut it right off. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So if the Board had indicated privacy screen or fencing along the road -- MR. KEIL: That would be fine. Also the lighting, from the original plan, I believe we have reduced them from about five lights. We reduced the number of lights once we did the photo layout. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. And no changes to setbacks -- MR. KEIL: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anybody have any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: in the audience who would this application? MR. ANDRUSKI: I I am president of the Baymen's Association. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: spell your name? Ail right. Jim? Is there anyone like to address Please come forward. am Nathan Andruski. Southold Town Would you please December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 54 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. ANDRUSKI: Last name? A-N-D-R-U-S-K-I. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. MR. ANDRUSKI: I am a local Baymen who does business with the applicant. Not only myself, but also about 25 other Baymen who do business with the applicant, and there is probably another 20 or so that do seasonal business. With these working conditions, it has inhibited them to buy full scale from us. Well, you have the trailer for the cooling stations, it's a little box. So he can't with his full intention buy what he wants to buy from us right now. In April, when the season kicks back up, it's really going to be inhibiting him what to buy. I have been in the cooler many times. Right now, he has very limited space for storage. You know, it also affects the guys that do business with. That's basically all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I take it that you are supporting the application? MR. ANDRUSKI: Absolutely, 100%, as well as all the other Baymen in the December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 association. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anything else from the Board or from the audience? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further questions or comments, I will make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING # 6609 - ROBERT CORAZZINI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Robert Corazzini, #6609. Request for variance from Article III, Code Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's July 27, 2012, updated November 1, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on a building permit application to December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 construct an accessory garage, at: 1} more than the code required maximum square footage of 660 square feet on lots containing less than 20,000 square feet, located at: 33195 Main Road, Cutchogue. Good morning. Could you state your for the record, please. Bill Kelly, name MR. KELLY: owner. agent for the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Mr. Kelly, do you have any more green cards? MR. KELLY: I do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Could you please bring them forward. Okay. So you are here before us to create an accessory garage at 900 square feet? MR. KELLY: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Where the code permits a maximum of 660 square feet on lots that are up to 20,000. MR. KELLY: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And this is 788 square feet? MR. KELLY: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. What would Deceu~ber 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you like to tell us? MR. KELLY: The purpose -- he is going to remove the existing structure that is in disrepair and the intent is to build a 30x30 garage. The reason for that is, Bob has collectible cars. He actually has them at another location because he doesn't really have the room for them, and the ability to work on them, from a standpoint of detailing. So it's to store his classic cars. So typically when we do a building for classic cars, you got to have enough room for shelving and work space around the vehicle. We're dealing with a vehicle that is usually from 16 to 20 feet long. So to try and do 660 square feet, it's just not enough to move around the car without potentially bumping it or scratching it. Ail of that is a cost. He would rather not have on a car like that. So that is the reasons. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is proposed on a two and a half car garage? MR. KELLY: Basically, yes. Usually anything over 22 feet long, it's two and a December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 half. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I should just state for the record that the -- even though we may certainly respect any property owners hobby, the law does not allow us to personalize variances, as it runs with the land. MR. KELLY: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As this can be sold with the land. And then the arguement, the garage goes away. Having said that, let's see what the Board has to say -- KELLY: Can I just back-up for a code MR. minute? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, you can. MR. KELLY: For example, because the has changed since 2007, and prior to wouldn't even be here unless it the lot coverage percentage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Correct. MR. KELLY: So if you can take that consideration. It's an undersized lot. not what I would call an oversized It's a normal sized garage. If it attached garage, it wouldn't be an 2007, we was over into It's garage. was an December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 59 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 issue but we don't want to do that. So if you could just take that into consideration when making your decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, I think we can. I think the code was changed for a reason because people were building huge accessory structures that were size of the their dwelling practically. MR. KELLY: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Accessory's are supposed to be incidental to the principal use. lot MR. KELLY: In this case, we are under coverage and we are not grossly oversized. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: inappropriate to indicate inspection indicated that Well, it's not that field the property that is adjacent to it had a fairly large structure. So the property to the east has large metal storage containers. Their are law offices that have substantial setbacks from your clients property. Jim, questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: Number 1, you could December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 60 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 probably build another garage on top of here. You can build another one on there, maybe three quarters of the size that you are proposing now. Say you cut the building down and you keep the existing garage, build another garage, which you are perfectly entitled to do. MR. KELLY: Yeah. MEMBER DINIZIO: You wouldn't be able to do it if you kept the garage -- you can build another two car garage without even coming to us. MR. KELLY: That's correct. The matter is, we looked at that, that you could build two garages there. In this case, we could go to two garages on the property. We could demolish the one that exist and build two more and be over the square footage that we are asking for now. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. It would be under any needs for a variance. MR. KELLY: Right. Ideally, I would want to want that. MEMBER DINIZIO: The cesspools that are on the site plan, are they for the building December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 61 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 are they for the house? MR. KELLY: They are for the house. MEMBER DINIZIO: They are? MR. KELLY: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you intend to have water? MR. KELLY: No, there would not be any water in the building. There will be electricity. MEMBER DINIZIO: Heat probably? MR. KELLY: It's not an insulated building at this point. It's a non-insulated building. MEMBER DINIZIO: What about an upstairs? MR. KELLY: There will be no second floor. It's a trust roof building, so there is no second floor. From the floor to the bottom of the trust is 4 feet, the reason is that is if he decides to put a lift in there. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. I am familiar with this building. So it's a two and a half car garage, and you are going about third over of what the law requires, and a December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 62 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's the only thing. Do you know what the lot coverage is? MR. KELLY: You know what, I thought I house, what's stopping you MR. KELLY: I think the building and the architecture had that on my finger tips. I thought I had jotted that down on the application someplace. MEMBER DINIZIO: I will take a better look. If you can maybe get that to us? MR. KELLY: Sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: The back of the house, you could attach it to the house -- MR. KELLY: We could do two things. Attach it to the house and then we can make it as big as we want, as long as we stay under the lot coverage percentage, or we can build two garages. MEMBER DINIZIO: On the back of the from not there? style of the of the house. Are MEMBER DINIZIO: The architecture of house, what is back there? MR. KELLY: It's what they call -- MEMBER DINIZIO: No, what physically. there bedrooms on the back? the December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 63 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. KELLY: That I don't know. Robert is here, and he would be better to answer that question. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. I mean, I see you have a grease trap there. MR. KELLY: It's an old house and it's an old system. MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me just ask him and get it on the record. That is what I am trying to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please just state your Jr. name. MR. CORAZZINI JR.: Robert Corazzini, MR. CORAZZINI JR.: There is a bathroom CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: There is a two-story frame house on this property? MR. CORAZZINI JR.: Correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: You couldn't build a garage on either side. You would have to put it in the back. You can build approximately the same size structure that you are proposing in the back. What rooms are on the back of that house? December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 on the first floor and a kitchen. MEMBER DINIZIO: So the kitchen is there? MR. CORAZZINI JR.: Yeah, it's on the back side of the house. The upstairs is just two bedrooms. MEMBER DINIZIO: The trap, that is just cesspool trap, sewage trap? your MR. CORAZZINI JR.: Correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: Would that be moved also? MR. CORAZZINI JR.: I believe it would be because that would be on top of it. MEMBER DINIZIO: I see two rings for the cesspool, do they exist? The one with hash mark -- MR. CORAZZINI JR.: Oh yeah. What happened was, month after I not want that that collapsed like about a purchased the house. So I did to happen again obviously. So I took the steps to correct it, and that is the suggestion that somebody had given me to fix that. It was one of those things that had to be fixed. MEMBER DINIZIO: The one attached, is December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 that new? I am just trying to figure out. Are you going to be driving over a cesspool to get to the garage? MR. CORAZZINI JR.: Yeah. the MEMBER DINIZIO: You are going to be? MR. CORAZZINI JR.: Yeah, the front of building will be facing there. That is where the front of the building will be. MEMBER DINIZIO: That doesn't have anything in it? CORAZZINI JR.: Okay. MR. CORAZZINI JR.: That's correct. It's a highway dome cover, I believe. MEMBER DINIZIO: This one here, does this exist? MR. CORAZZINI JR.: Yes, it does. MEMBER DINIZIO: And the one attached, is another one? MR. CORAZZINI JR.: I see the one. Yeah, there is another one there. I don't know if that was ever on the survey because it is there. MEMBER DINIZIO: This is your survey. It says proposed 8 foot diameter, four feet drywell. MR. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 MR. is not the roof water MEMBER there? MR. KELLY: Let me answer that. That cesspool. That is a drywell for runoff. DINIZIO: And that's going to be KELLY: That will be there. MEMBER DINIZIO: That is going to be your drywell? MR. KELLY: yet, MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. MR. CORAZZINI JR.: I'm sorry, misunderstood. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's okay. I wanted to be clear. So basically, a kitchen and a bathroom on the that house. MR. KELLY: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: The grease Yes. This does not exist and that would be installed. you would have to move that. MR. KELLY: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. just you have back of trappings, is all I December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't see that there is a huge problem with dealing with this application. It probably makes more sense in building one large building. Since you are destroying one. I kind of understand the proposal and the it, and I will leave it at that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. George? is the rather house? purpose of MEMBER HORNING: And simply again, what reason for having a detached garage than trying to attach it to the MR. CORAZZINI JR.: Well, my father I have classic show cars and we want to keep them in a safe place. I think the and expenses of attaching it to the existing garage, would be pretty extensive. MEMBER HORNING: I mean, attaching it to the house, could you do that? MR. KELLY: One thing it would require is removing the sanitary system and redoing the sanitary system. The second thing that it would require, if we were going to December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 attach it to the house, then we would probably change the architecture of the structure of the house, which would be a lot more extensive then what we are So in a nutshell for not attaching it proposing to do now. those are the reasons to the house. MEMBER HORNING: You could attach it to the house and not need a variance at all. MR. KELLY: That is correct. Just like we could build two buildings and not need a variance. MEMBER HORNING: Right. So me a compelling reason on why instead of one attach it to the house? MR. KELLY: Yes. The number one reason is that the client would prefer to have it detached. The second reason is cost driven if we were to attach it. We are going to make it look like the house and get a lot more involved with the reconstruction of the house. MEMBER DINIZIO: Morton building. really nice. This is kind of like a Just so you know. It looks can you give you would not Dece~er 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 69 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. KELLY: It would require cedar siding, which is expensive to do and so on and so forth. it it MEMBER MEMBER would be look like a MR. KELLY: CHAIRPERSON HORNING: Thank you. DINIZIO: I am just saying that very difficult for you to make house? Exactly. WEISMAN: MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: the audience who wishes application? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: you a question. Bill, I you my neighbors garage tastefully did. MR. KELLY: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: the difference in price Ken? questions. Anyone else in to address this Bill, let me ask had discussed with that you have very What do you think between the one that Mr. Corazzini wants to do and the other? It's almost the identical size. MR. KELLY: Cedar siding for example. Cedar siding and trim and everything goes for about $10 and $12 a foot. So if you December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 70 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 take that number times 1800 square feet, it's like $18,000.00. That is just the siding component. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that is really what pushed that one over? MR. KELLY: Right. There are a lot of want cases when people just want it, they it and cost doesn't matter. If it's something that you can't really afford, then it does matter. I would say it does matter in this case. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So like more? MR. KELLY: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are there any more comments from the Board or audience? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing further questions or comments from the Board, I will make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? $17,000.00 no December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6610 - ROBERT M. SCHREIBER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Robert M. Schreiber, #6610. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III, Section 280-13B(13) . The Applicant is the owner requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an accessory structure, located at; 6175 Oregon Road in Cutchogue. Please come forward. Would you just please state your name for the record? MS. O'DONNELL: My name is Amy O'Donnell. I am the agent for the owner, Robert Schreiber. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning. MS. O'DONNELL: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Couple of December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 questions here. The Building Department indicated that this is 620 square feet of livable floor area. So that is within the boundaries of the Special Exception. However, there is two issues that I want to talk about. The first is, we have no CO or Pre-CO on the subject barn. And we do have a CO for the smaller building, which is being called a 25x30 frame building defined as an art studio, but we have no CO on this barn building. And the second is, the application states you are proposing a full bathroom, another half bath. MS. O'DONNELL: No, that is incorrect. We initially were asking for that and we had the it redrawn, and I believe you do have current drawings from Nancy Dwyer, showing that the half bath has been completely eliminated and it will only be storage closet. So it will only have one bathroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the plumbing is in. MS. O'DONNELL: Yes, that I know. And would be capped off and covered, prior it a December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 to any approval. The reason I believe you don't have a CO or a Pre-CO, we also couldn't find one for the main structure of the house, because and this was my understanding when we were looking, because of the age of the property. The house is so old, there isn't a CO for lt. The barn was with the house when the property was purchased. The art studio which Mr. Schreiber did construct, he had a CO for. I will certainly go back and look again, but that is what I was told when we were searching. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our offices show that there is one that does not exist. So you would need to apply for one. MS. O'DONNELL: There is not one for the house either, do I do one for the main structure as well? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. MS. O'DONNELL: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What year did you purchase this property? MR. SCHREIBER: 1981. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it was December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 74 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 purchased in '81 and neither the house or barn have Pre-CO's. The Board has to show that the building existed with a Pre-Co or CO prior to 2008, which is when the legislation was first approved to permit accessory apartments in accessory structures. As per the code, it requires that the applicant must be living on the premises, as you indicate. And that you rent it to either a relative or an individual qualified under the Affordable Housing Registry. MS. O'DONNELL: The two sons would be living in the accessory apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This looks a little bit unusual. There is no bedrooms proposed. MS. O~DONNELL: No, it's more of a studio space. It has sink. We are asking for a sink in the main area, and there is refrigerator. There is no stove and then the one bathroom. There is a microwave. If it required something more than that, they could go into the main house and use that. It's more of a studio space, which is why a Dece~ber 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 75 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we were able to eliminate the other bathroom. One is sufficient for someone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, there is also some discussion about part of this being used as a pool house. So it's a little unclear as to whether this is a guest accomodation or sort of a recreational thing associated with a pool house, with use of the pool, which is right off of the deck that is attached, or is this in fact a year round living apartment? MS. O'DONNELL: We are asking for it to be a year round accessory apartment. It probably will only be about eight to nine months a year that they will actually be there. When we went to the Building Department they approved the structure. This space is within the barn. So they approved that as a pool house, because that is what it's called. George had come on the site and done and look at the property and said that we needed to get a C of O for this and then we did. We applied for it, for that area within the existing structure. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 76 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: For a pool house? O'DONNELL: That is what he said to call it. That is all that it was an area off the pool in the MS. we have was. It back of the existing barn. We're not changing the physical outward structure of any of the barn at all. We're not adding an outdoor shower or any of those things. So in order for us to get a Certificate of Occupancy for that, I was told -- for people to actually live in the space, we have to go and ask for an accessory apartment. So that is obviously why we are here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because Special Exception permits don't go to the Building Department. They come directly to the Zoning Board. MS. O'DONNELL: We kind of had to back track because the space is already there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's really not a pool house? MS. O'DONNELL: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are using it as an accessory apartment with a storage December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 closet? But it's still storage closet. MS. O'DONNELL: We pool storage at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you removing the storage MS. obviously has a listed as pool house are not using it as are half bath and using it as a closet? O'DONNELL: Correct. So that he place to hang his because it's one HORNING: In the applicant's description it also makes also. You do say, we a full bathroom, laundry belongings MEMBER part of the room. revising that. existing barn a pool house. It is partial conversion of a pool house. That is more correctly, right? MS. O'DONNELL: Yes. There are drawings. We have removed that bathroom and we are only asking for the one. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How is this going room and half bath, but you that? MS. O'DONNELL: We are MEMBER HORNING: To an with partial conversion to reference to that would like to add are revising December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 78 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 to be insulated? MS. O'DONNELL: It is not going to be insulated. We're going to use a space heater in the winter time when it gets really cold. We're not going to insulate and heat the space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How are you going to deal with the plumbing? Pipes burst. A full bathroom and a laundry room. MS. O'DONNELL: It was on prior to this and we have never had an issue with it. We have left the water on and it has never been an issue. MEMBER DINIZIO: You are before us for an accessory apartment in an accessory building, and I think the confusion is that, you are asking us for a concept not necessarily an actual apartment. Because for most of us, an apartment would actually have a stove, and a kitchen. It would have a bedroom and that kind of thing. Even heat, one would think that an apartment in the northeast, an apartment would have availability of heat. You know, I am not so sure we can grant an apartment to somebody December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 that didn't meet the State Code for what an apartment of livable structure would be. MS. O'DONNELL: Okay. Can it be used in the months primarily that doesn't require those things? Doesn't require heat from -- MEMBER DINIZIO: From my point of view, I think you are asking us for the concept. And you know, I have no objection to it. It seems like you have enough square footage. You seem to meet the code, with the exception to the fact that it doesn't look like an apartment in the State Code that says what is an apartment. You say you are going to use a space heater, for that living space, I don't believe it is allowed. MS. O'DONNELL: Okay. MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, you have an apartment. You are supposed to have heat in it somehow, a boiler or whatever. So that just leaves me a little, you know, maybe you have to make the concept a little more apartment just to satisfy our needs to grant an apartment. MS. O'DONNELL: If in fact we were December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 trying to get this application put through, we are certainly willing to put in electric heat. That would be the least expensive option. I am guessing, I am not a builder. That would be the least expensive option. MEMBER DINIZIO: Go speak to the Building Inspector and ask them what the minimum requirements for an apartment would be. I don't think that I would grant an apartment that doesn't meet some State Code. MS. O'DONNELL: Okay. MEMBER DINIZIO: I am in the security/fire alarm business. And I just would hate to be standing outside this building one morning after I got a call that burnt down to ashes with someone in there, on an application that I voted. I think about that problem. You know, I would like to just have the Building Inspector tell us that. If this meets it, I am happy. MS. O'DONNELL: Okay. I would be more than happy to do that. More than willing to do whatever it needs me to do. Mr. Schreiber has this building and December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 81 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 eventually he will pass title of this property. The same as we are looking for Pre-CO or CO for the house and barn, he needs to have a Certificate of Occupancy for all of these structures so that he can pass title. That is really the ultimate goal. He also has a son that needs somewhere to live nine months out of the year. Separate from Florida. So this will fulfill both of his needs. So I am certainly willing to have George come out and tell us what we need to do and put in electric heat. I have no problems with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What you are describing now, is called a seasonal habitation. We can't call it a dwelling because a dwelling is more than 850 square feet. It's not a cottage. It's not separate. So it's kind of a hybrid that is being proposed. I think Jim has brought up some good points about this Board being able to grant an apartment if this doesn't meet State Code, the standards of it. MEMBER HORNING: Does the family member December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 82 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 occupying the structure, is a lease required or not? MS. O'DONNELL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is. That is handled through the Building Department. We don't stipulate the amount of money. is your son. Ken, do you have any questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The plans show that the exterior walls are insulated? MS. O'DONNELL: Yes, they are. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the proposed accessory structure will be insulated? O'DONNELL: Yes. The ceiling is It MS. not. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is an issue that I have not discussed with the applicant at this point. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is the ceiling going to be insulated? MS. O'DONNELL: It's not at this point. Not now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is going to lot of heat loss. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is be a a difficult December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 83 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. That is an issue that you need to discuss with the Building Inspector. There is no fire rating on this ceiling. was Any other We can't grant a a preexisting CO MS. O'DONNELL: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: questions from the Board? Special Exception without on a property. MS. O'DONNELL: I understand that. I under the impression that the buildings were so old and the title obviously passed to Bobby when he purchased them, it was -- we looked. There was nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you will have to apply for that. I think what we will have to do is close subject to receipt of a CO or have to adjourn without a date, until such time -- MS. O'DONNELL: George and he gives and we resubmit that -- MEMBER DINIZIO: drawings for sure. CHAIRPERSON Now if I go with us what the code is, drawings showing all of We need the second Whatever the code is. WEISMAN: I think given all December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 of that, the issues have been brought forth, and we should probably adjourn without a date. So that you can proceed with what you have to do and contact the office as soon as you possibly can. And then we will schedule the next possible date with the new information. MS. O'DONNELL: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further questions or comments, I am going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing without a date subject to receipt of additional information regarding updated plans, code requirements and Pre-CO's. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 85 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.) HEARING #6611 - DANIEL DEVITO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Daniel Devito, #6611. Request for variance from Article III Code Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's November 2, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for an accessory in-ground pool and pool house; 1) location other than the code permitted front yard or rear yard on waterfront property, located at: 750 Paradise Point, adjacent to Shelter Island Sound, Southold. Would you please state your name for the record? MR. CICHANOWICZ: David Cichanowicz, representing Daniel and Gina Devito. To start off with, I did get a copy of the review from the ZBA dealing with some of the inconsistencies of, I believe the LWRP issue with the setback of the pool. So what I have here is some elevations of the property to show. And I also have letters December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 86 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 from the neighbor, Mark Miller. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. CICHANOWICZ: This is site inspection of dealing with the actual pool location proximity to the bluff, grade differentials from the top of the bluff. Actually the edge of the proposed patio, which comes within the 50 foot area. As per the LWRP was saying, the patio is part of the setback of the pool structure. And this is just showing that in most cases and other projects, that patio is not affected because it's at grade. I think the LWRP we are dealing with more of the water runoff then proximity to the bluff. Whereas there is a negative elevation. It is actually going landward a substantial amount. There is no issues as far as runoff from the pool or pool patio towards the bluff area. So I am requesting that the pool stay in the proposed area. I think we do cover the requirements needed by the LWRP. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The proposed patio around the pool, you propose at grade? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, at grade around December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 the pool. There will just be some minor contouring around the pool, shaping, but nothing raising. In this particular case, this is one of the nicest bluffs that we have in this neighborhood. Especially after just going through Hurricane Sandy, there was literally no erosion that was done. Very well protected. And then with the pool going in as an added feature, it will absolutely have no effect at all. Being that the top of the bluff is 50 feet inward and pitched inward. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The fence requirements for the pool, are they being met? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yeah, that is actually something that I need to discuss with the Southold Town Trustees, because part of the proposal, we are proposing putting on a section of the bluff. So have to wait to see if that -- it certainly will be a pool completely fenced in as per the code requirements, as the Town requires. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Will it require a December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 variance for that fenced in area? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, because it's within their jurisdiction and not ours. And they will examine it for potential impact and they may require that it be set not on a bluff but closer to the house, on top of the bluff. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So landward? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, landward. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Which would affect the pool location? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Not entirely. Basically, as far as the Trustees are concerned, simple planting is to be kept at the top of the bluff, landward. That would be fine with them. So we have in the past, have had approvals from the Trustees with pool fencing on the bluff with their approvals. That is something that I just need to kick back to the Trustees before going forward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Clearly, a lot of trees are going to have to be removed before anything is installed in the front yard or the side yard. That does create December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 89 1 2 $ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some degree of land disturbance, as well as potential runoff. Very minimal. MR. CICHANOWICZ: From my opinion on the grading, it's pretty much in a straight direction towards Paradise Point Road. Not toward the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reason for the need to remove the trees is purely for the ability to have a clear space for a swimming pool? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Correct. And to be so that you are not swimming in a shaded pool area as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: About how many trees would need to be removed area that you are proposing? MR. CICHANOWICZ: I believe 17. from the I counted CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have a huge front yard. Tell me why this pool could not be located there in a conforming location, as opposed to the side yard? MR. CICHANOWICZ: A front yard is conforming? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, it's a December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 90 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 waterfront property. Any waterfront property can have it in a conforming front yard. So why can't it be located in that front yard? It's a relative front yard. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well, we are looking to have it next to the screened in porch to the south side of the house. There is a huge screened in porch. So that has the family as having there, and having the kids in the pool. So they will be in eye view. That is very important. The view of the bay is beautiful. That is the best of both worlds. It's a beautiful location and why not be able to take advantage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is a very good point. It's a very natural vegetated area. MR. CICHANOWICZ: We don't have any intention of removing any of the vegetation on the bluff. I am always a big advocate on not taking down that. But selective pruning on the bluff, actually makes it stronger and does enhance the stability of the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I still would December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 25 24 25 like to know what happened with the front yard, whether there is any septic system up there? So it doesn't appear that there are any mechanical underground systems that would prevent conforming locations. It's just for the -- your application does say in Town Law #1, the reason why you want it in a side yard is there are other pools in sides and front yards, which would address character of the neighborhood. I don't show any information submitted to show other pools in side yards on Paradise Point Road. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Okay. We are trying to conform to -- building codes. We are conforming to without your approval. What is the big problem of having it set on the side yard on size of a 3/4 piece of property? A half acre property, I can understand. Smaller space. Do you want to put the poll further away from the pool. It becomes a bigger deal to use it. Why even put it in? People want to have a pool that is convenient and usable. The landscaping, this is conceptual. We are going to major screening around all of it, exterior December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 borders to address any of the privacy problems of the adjoining neighbors. These people are very considerate. They are not looking to have wild parties. This is just where they are proposing to have it. I don't understand why it has to be such a big issue in locating it in this position. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, let me just state for the record, that the law requires the Zoning Board to grant the least variance reasonably possible. And you are now conforming with regards to a setback, from when the law was changed from 100 feet to 50 feet in Chapter 275. Why that happened, still baffles me. There are even more environmental impacts on bluffs now, given the changes from this weather and with Super Storm Sandy. MS. ANDALORO: I just want to make sure that you read through the LWRP, because it looks like there may be an issue of whether or not it complies with the 50 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. The LWRP even if it's at grade, it's not clear of December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 the code. And as you recall, Mark Terry talked to Jim King of the Trustees about what they meant about incidental related structures. That did even include at grade patio. So that is why the LWRP recommends that the whole thing go more landward. So that the patio is within that 50 foot setback. But again, if a variance -- one of the standards that you said as a reason, the applicant has no alternative but a variance or relief from the code. And that is why I am asking you, why you can't put it in a front yard. You have that alternative where it could be conforming and not even require a variance. We're obliged to explore that on the public record. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just had a couple of other questions. The pool house, you are not proposing a shower? We don't have any plans for the pool house. MR. CICHANOWICZ: No, it's basically a support building, where we plan putting the pool equipment and storage in a small area. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 94 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: you are proposing to put house? MR. CICHANOWICZ: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: a de-watering drywell? So the in the Correct. Does equipment, pool this require MR. CICHANOWICZ: No, it's a defiltering system, which by Town Code Building Department does not require any drywell. That is all relatively new in the last few years. That is the way that the pools are going. They find it more effective and a lot less problematic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What do they actually have to do when they winterize it and remove the water? MR. CICHANOWICZ: No one ever removes the water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You want to swim in that? MR. CICHANOWICZ: After it is filtered. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a gunite pool? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the system December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 95 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 called? MR. CICHANOWICZ: The swimming pool systems have what is called a backwash. That is pretty much everyone is familiar with. It backwashes hundreds of gallons of water through this thing to kind of clean this filter. The new filter systems don't require it. It actually goes through a filter. After a period of time, it gets taken out and replaced with a new one. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Got ya. So you can call it a cartridge filter system? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yeah. That is the new designs. Relatively new. MEMBER HORNING: I kind of concur with the Chairperson. The question as to why it couldn't be located in a more conforming or a conforming location. And also the at grade patio. You are proposing it to be very nonconforming in a side yard, not sufficient. Not even the 50 feet from the top of the bluff. But lets go through with the submissions for the LWRP, Policy #1, offer a pattern of development detecter and you just put, "yes." No script. There is December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 96 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 no reasons why you are actually adhering Policy %1. Policy #4, minimize loss of life, structure, etcetera. You are not to giving any script why you are adhering to Policy #4. You just have a "yes," checked. And Policy #5, the same thing. You just have the "yes," checked. The reason why I ask that, in the LWRP he cites you as being inconsistent and he goes through at least Policy #4 and #5 on why he thinks you are inconsistent. How do you comment on that? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well again, from my past history in dealing with the LWRP, most of the problems have been with control of water from the improved structures. The patio being attached to the pool structure. The patio as proposed would cause additional problems to the area of the LWRP. This being concerned because of the grade issues that exist which may have not been clearly defined before, show a change in the venue, I believe, to allow to occur the way it is proposed. Now, as far as the actual location, where we have it proposed in the side lot, yes nonconforming. It is December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 97 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 where my customers would like it located, or at least as located to this facility as possible. So I am representing them to get this location approved by you, and to you for your comments and suggestions to make this work. MEMBER HORNING: Again, sir, in your submission, Policy %4, that is left blank. You say you are conforming to policy and yet LWRP says that you are not. form MR. CICHANOWICZ: I don't have that in front of you. MEMBER HORNING: I am just going through that because it's relevant. One of his last statements in Policy #4 is recommending that the Board relocate the pool patio landward of the 50 foot setback and you have already gotten -- the property owners have already gotten substantial relief in the past years from a 100 foot setback requirement. Now it's only 50 feet, but you are not even wanting a 50 foot. You are wanting less than that. And the LWRP coordinator is recommending to us that we require the 50 foot setback. It's December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 relevant and significant to us. You have covered Policy #4 and #5 with the pool de-watering and saying it's not relevant. With the setback, it's relevant. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Okay. What is drawn is a 15 foot patio seaward of the pool. So in order to make it more conforming, or shorten the patio or eliminate the patio, then that would be acceptable to meet that issue at least. MEMBER HORNING: Yes, it would be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Frankly, we are overlapping the Trustees jurisdiction here. They are really not before us for the 50 feet. Although it is in someways, because we have to look at the LWRP's recommendation. The other comment was the removal of the 17 trees for the pool, which is in the 100 foot setback of the bluff, and does impact the natural vegetated buffer. Whereas, in a conforming front yard, you would be removing potentially 9 trees. I just want that to be reflected in the public record. We may want to ask for comments from the Trustees with regards to December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 99 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. It seems that Mark Terry clarified that their intent was to include -- (In Audible). MEMBER DINIZIO: They can't get a permit or a CO or anything if they don't meet the Trustees. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that whatever they make of that decision, we should not be involved with it. That is my own on opinion. I mean, I have done a lot of decisions. I think the first one that I was the Board, I think we granted a pool in a side yard in this general location. The reason was somewhat similar. The house was built closer to the water. They wanted to take advantage of the views. They had plenty of side yard. What we did, we made them attach it to the house. You must remember that Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, I do. MEMBER DINIZIO: Therefore, it was the house. I mean, in any case, if part of you could consider that. In other words, you really wouldn't be before us if you were December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 denied for made it part of would no longer yard for a comment MR. to talk don't that. give issue and it's know being a side yard. So if you an accessory structure you be considered in a side principal on that? CICHANOWICZ: Well, I would have to my clients. They are here. I know if they would be opposed to It could be a possibility. If you me a minute, I could talk to them? MEMBER DINIZIO: Sure. MR. CICHANOWICZ: I understand the tree the setback. I do feel as you do, more of a Trustee issue, and that I I need to go before them as well. So nothing is going to be done signed off on the structure decking, like CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: considered attached. it. But as far to the primary a wooden structure -- That is MR. CICHANOWICZ: Interesting. Why is that considered a difference? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's the grade. MEMBER DINIZIO: My interpretation is until I am all as connecting residence with structure. Can you December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 that a deck is a structure because you have to construct it. Concrete is poured on the ground. That is basically it. They have to look at that and look and see if it's anchored correctly. MR. CICHANOWICZ: If you raise the patio -- MEMBER DINIZIO: I think you have to go 18 inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you raise the patio then it's a structure. MS. ANDALORO: There is two different terms being used in two different codes that may be interpreted different. I know under the 280, which is the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Department, they talk about structures being raised 18 inches or higher. Anything 18 inches or higher under 280, is a structure. Now under this new term under Chapter 275, this new structure, it appears that the Trustees may consider at grade patios as a pool related structure. I don't know. But that is for them to look at. Not for us, and I don't know if the Building Department would even December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 102 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 look at it. It's solely within the Trustees jurisdiction. So just so you understand the distinction here. I know it's quite confusing, because quite frankly, I am confused as well. I think that is what it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our main concern is the side yard location and why you can't put it in a front yard, because that is a legal requirement that we have to ask. That is one of the things that we have to ask is if there is an alternative. One of the things that I have heard and please correct me if I am wrong, that you want the convenience of having it closer to the screened porch, which sits on the dwelling, which has a nonconforming setback from the bluff. And that is about it, and a water view. You would still have a water view from a conforming location with pruning. So what the Board needs to have is a more conforming reason why you can't have it in a conforming front yard. That is the reason we need to have before we grant anything. I wouldn't say that there is a huge precedent Dece~er 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 103 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the neighborhood that there is all these swimming pools in side yards along Paradise Point. You did make that reference but there is nothing there to verify it. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you could do that and submit that, and you can address the character of the neighborhood that some of those swimming pools are in the side yard, then we have something in which we can address the variance relief that you are looking for. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Or I can attach it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Or you can attach it and do it as of right. Those are two options. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Okay. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And maybe look at the need for accessibility, is it better in the front yard or side yard? You are talking about the screened porch? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I assume that there is a door that leads to the side yard? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: If it was in a front yard, what would be the access to the pool? MR. CICHANOWICZ: There is a front door that is remotely seaward of the driveway and all of that. It would be several hundred feet away from a proposed pool in a front yard, compared to 50 feet, 60 feet from the side yard. So that is a substantial difference, hardship if you may, in using the area with the families and the kids all of that -- yes, you have the property and the right to put it there, but it doesn't really work. I don't think that most people would care for this location. I am trying to use common sense for this location. Although it doesn't conform with the ZBA or zoning, it does as the layout of the land and contours of the land, beautifully. It fits their needs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Dave, the landscaped design plan that you submitted, it says "not to scale." About how wide do you think that patio is -- MR. CICHANOWICZ: It's 15 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Does the December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 Board have any other questions or comments? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Other than the fact if he wants to talk to his clients -- MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yeah, if you would just give me a moment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don't we just do this, why don't we just leave this hearing open and let you go out there and talk to your clients and we will proceed with the next hearing. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then you can come back. MEMBER HORNING: If the pool was located in a conforming location, i.e., the front yard, what would be the distance from this side screened porch -- the closest access, in comparison to the distance now? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Ail right. I can get that. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We recognize that there is an attorney here representing the neighbor. Maybe before we have you go out and talk to your client, we can hear what December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 she has come to say? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don't to the podium. MS. MOORE: Pat Moore. I am representing the Macari family. Macari's are the owners of the directly the pool have The property to the south and most affected by location. I took photographs. You points of a basis for getting a variance in a side yard to be shown. And aside from the convenience factor, I guess from the doorway, it doesn't seem to be much on the record. Let me give you photographs, so you concern that the can appreciate the Macari's have. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MS. MOORE: The top page is the site plan that is before you. Just to clarify something, because I must have missed something, and I seem to follow the code very well. I know the Trustees have changed the distance of accessory structure from the top of the bluff. Did the Zoning Code you already stated on the record the December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 -- was that modified to be conforming? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Zoning Code wasn't changed. MS. MOORE: So my interpretation and understanding of what had been done was the Trustees can consider it under their 275 jurisdiction. The Building Department still has to cite structures within a 100 feet of the top of the bluff, as -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, on the sound. MS. MOORE: Then is the 75 from the top of the bay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think it's 76. MS. MOORE: From the top of the bay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. MS. MOORE: So why is that not cited here as well? MS. ANDALORO: It's not a variance. You have to be 75 feet from a bulkhead on the bay. It's a bluff, but it has to be from the Sound. MS. MOORE: I agree with you, but I have come in for variances for accessory structures on top of a bank, and was determined by the Building Department that December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 108 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I needed a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It may have been a rear yard setback. MS. MOORE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Trustees will have to adjudicate that. Our concern is the reason -- MS. MOORE: Why it can't conform. I took photographs because in looking at the Macari House from the street, you can't appreciate that all of their living space is all over by the water. The first photograph, is their outdoor living area where they spend most of their time. It's just a little brick courtyard. That is their living area. That is why they have asked me to come in and ask you to move the pool away from the structure in a conforming yard. To keep it away from area. This is their living space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you copy of the LWRP? MS. MOORE: No, I never got CHAIRPERSON shows -- have it. WEISMAN: Because that this a December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 109 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: Okay. Do you have a MS. TOTH: Yes, come up, Pat. MS. MOORE: So Photograph 1, copy? Photograph 2, and 3. Those are the ones that show the property line. On Photograph 4, you can see the space. Photograph #5, I took from inside the house. You can see Mr. Macari and my jacket and pocketbook. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the stockade fence, whose is that? MS. MOORE: I don't know. There is a stockade fence between them. It's there. The concern that they have is -- and Photograph 6 and 7, I obviously didn't want to trespass. I went up to the fence that is there on the landward side of garage of the Macari property. I took a photograph into the property and I highlighted what I thought I could see showing where the proposed pool would be. I am very familiar with this property because I have done a subdivision for Miller's and I did a slight change for Miller & Shift. Putting the pool as close as to their house as possible certainly makes sense. I don't know how December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 that impacts whether the existing setbacks of the house, because then you are increasing the degree of nonconformity. That would be the only thing that I would raise as an issue. Placing of the pool in the front yard is very straightforward here. It's more land. The Miller's have the pool in the front yard with all of their ancillary structures. They have a carriage house and a pool house all in the front yard. So the house that is very similar to this has all their structures in the front yard. So we would ask -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We got a letter from Mark Miller, is that the same? MS. MOORE: Yes, Mark Miller. They would have no problem. I can't imagine to them having a pool in the front yard because their pool is in the front yard. That is the request of the Macari Family, the pool, the pool house, everything as far away from their private small area as possible, because it would impact their quality of life and their impact as neighbors. Otherwise, they are entitled to December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 a pool. I am not against pool, just the location. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: else in the audience that this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: further comments, I am going motion to recess for a short the agent and his clients can then come back to this Board. them having a Thank you. Is there anyone wishes to address Okay. Hearing no to make a while so that confer and MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will second that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6613 DIVELLO CHAIRPERSON - JOHN M. & FRANCES C. WEISMAN: We are going move onto the next application before Board. It's for John M. And Frances C. to the December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 112 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Request for variances under and the Building updated Disapproval for building permit Divello, #6613. Article III Section 280-39 Inspector's July 27, 2012, October 31, 2012 Notice of based on an application less for a lot line change, at: Proposed Lot #32 - 1) less than the code required minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, 2) than the code required front yard setback of 50 feet; located at: 305 Hill Street, corner Mary's Avenue & Wickham Avenue, corner Hill Street in Mattituck. Sir, you are not here representing the Divello's, are you? MR. PETRAUSKAS SR.: No, I am not. I am Joseph Petrauskas. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. What I am going to do is have the agent come forward and at the end, there will be time for you to address the Board after -- MR. PETRAUSKAS SR.: Okay. Sure. MS. WICKHAM: Good afternoon. My name is Abigail Wickham Mattituck, New York. Representing the owners of the property and the applicant. You have the application. I December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 just wanted to give you a brief overview and I am sure there are a few comments that we will try and help you with. This project started, what I would like to call, the Glory Days of Jean Cochran. In connection with the Route 48 Zoning, the Town sought fit in it's infinite wisdom to rezone a portion of this property, which you all know is not on Route 48, to residential. And what they did was take a section of the property, which is approximately half acre on top of Hill Street, which faces the school property on Mary's Road. They zoned it to residential. That property was or is a half acre lot that has been zoned Light Industrial for many, many years. When the Town Board did that in connection with the Route 48 rezoning, the developer had a problem because they now had a Light Industrial lot that was bifurcating zoning and they didn't really have an area in that lot to accommodate either use under the minimum square footage of the respective zoning ordinances. The developer did bring a litigation on the Town. It had gone on December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 114 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 for many years and fairly recently, in the context of that proceeding, the Town rezoned the portion of property, which is now shown as the proposed Lot %2 on your rather than the have to give map incorrectly So that is not attorney will already occurred. correct. map, to Residential Office, former R-40 Zoning. I will you another map because the shows Lot #2 as R-40 Zoning. correct. And I am sure your tell you, that zoning has MS. ANDALORO: That is MS. WICKHAM: The Town has settled the matter by agreeing to apply for permission to separate the RO Zoned portion of the parcel, which is proposed Lot #2 to the remainder of the Tax Lot #30 parcel. And in the process of that, merged the remainder of that tax lot #32, which is still zoned Light Industrial into the adjoining lot to the west, Wickham Avenue, which is also Light Industrial and contains large office building. So as a result of this, the zoning up at Mary's Road, will remain, and the LI portion of the property will be combined into one single lot of LI zoning. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 115 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The decision to have this complete, is not a Town Board decision. It requires your approval of the variance because the RO portion of the property is less than the 40,000 square feet minimum that the code requires, as the R-40 zoning. It also requires Trustees approval and the Health Department. In connection with the Health Department application, we will be able to complete what has essentially or preventing a CO for the residence, which is something that I would think you want me to address today and tell you that we will be getting CO's for the residence and the rest of these buildings as part of the process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because we are aware that there are no CO's on any of the buildings. MS. WICKHAM: That all has to be addressed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does public water have to line up in the street or Health Department approval -- MS. WICKHAM: We will have to address that with the Health Department. Not December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 necessarily, I think that is the correct answer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I see that you are kind of caught in a Catch 22 with the agencies trying to take action. Just for the record, the code requires 40,000 square feet and on the proposed residential lot, would be 22,647 square feet; correct? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. As you are aware, it's a minor variance, the overhang on the house is about 42 feet from one of the front yards. The actual house, I think is 49 feet. So that is a de minimus variance. That was on the Notice of Disapproval and there was a subsequent verification by the surveyor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have two variances of a front yard setback of existing, 41.7. And this is indicating 41.8. So you are 1/10 of a difference. 41.8 feet from the property line. MS. WICKHAM: So I would like to submit, the variance part of it is relatively small. It's in housekeeping of what you would see on a corner lot because December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 we do have one front yard on a corner lot. And also the requested area variance is not only in connection with the proposed settlement of the Town, but also it's not out of keeping in the character of the neighborhood, in terms of lot size. As well as the fact, that that portion of the property because it's a hill and a wooded area and slopes down. (In Audible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, do you have any questions at this point? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you like to see if there is anyone in the audience who would like to address this application? MEMBER HORNING: Leslie, can I ask a couple of questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: When was the area rezoned? MS. WICKHAM: On August 2011. The R-40 to RO was rezoned then. The Route 48 took place ten years ago ago. MEMBER HORNING: or more. A long time Ail right. Has there December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 been any physical changes on the property? MS. WICKHAM: Not that I am aware of. The house has been there for a long time. In fact, I think you have in your records, a pool. I don't know if they have done any other changes. That will all come up with the application that we are making. To give you a better answer on that, as I said, this property is preexisting. On the LI portion of the property, there used to be an old storage bin. I think you can see on the property card. It was a huge metal structure. That was removed. I think they put a shed behind the office building. Certainly, there has been more taken off of that property in terms of structures. My client is outside talking to one of the neighbors. I think I will ask him to come in. Do you have any other questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not at the moment. Let's see if there are any other comments. Would anyone like to address this application? Please come forward and state your name and spell it for the public, December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 119 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 please. MR. PETRAUSKAS SR.: Joseph W. Petrauskas, P-E-T-R-A-U-S-K-A-S SR. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. What would you like to tell us, sir? MR. PETRAUSKAS SR.: I have owned for a long time the two lots that are on the south side of Hill Street. Lot's #38 and #37. I still own Lot #37, which is going to be grossly impacted by this application. And as Gail has said to you, there was a (In Audible) there. I have no problem with the Divello's. I have problems with the business and how they would bend the business, you know, with -- for example, right across the street, there were trees, you know where the bend was. And the Divello's/Mattituck Sanitation took that property. The home was built for the mother and father, and that is the home (In Audible). They have been removed. The property has been extensively used over the years, and now, even without permits. Mattituck Sanitation has taken liberties and encroachments on other properties. Even December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 120 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 American Legion, and Gerry, you are well aware, there was a berm all the way along the south side of Hill Street and Wickham. The berm was removed and Mattituck Sanitation extended their their trucks and their parking lots, ended up more or less destroying the parking lot. So set of violations recognized by the use for and the removal of those trees. My property is definitely -- this has always been residential. The other modular home, they are not movable. They have roof's on them. The other piece of property, Lot #38, I believe it is now in violation and there has been complaints to the ZBA about their commercial use and encroachment on other properties, including my own. The property looks like Sanitation a junk yard. The Mattituck trucks are along the streets. They are parked all over the place. You have to go around them. That was a persistent thing. They removed the trees and started using what they are now calling there has been a consistent that were not brought or ZBA. And the worst being December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 121 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 for. This property has already been used by them. It's their storage for garbage bins and trucks and everything else. There was a complaint, as I recall, back years ago, and nothing was ever done with that. Seems to me like the Board has been remised in that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board does not have jurisdiction to enforce code -- MR. PETRAUSKAS SR.: They have done nothing. Code has done nothing. Now, you have an application before you for an extensive use of this property. I am vehemently against the passage of this permit in that it has already been extensive violations, and I don't think -- it's going to impact my property value. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just ask our attorney. This was before the Town Board, and then there is a settlement there in terms of the zoning. Could you just record, is the easterly clarify for the portion is now zoned MS. ANDALORO: I Office. CHAIRPERSON residential? think it's Residential WEISMAN: Residential December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 122 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Office. And the rest of the property is zoned LI? MS. ANDALORO: LI, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The zoning is in effect in consequence of the Town Board's action. MS. ANDALORO: It was always Light Industrial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The easterly end, be now zoned Residential. That is now accomplished. MS. ANDALORO: Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we are now doing is examining the lot line portion, which is more of a residential parcel, because all of that parcel is of consideration for a lot line change, if in fact zoned Light Industrial. It is not zoned Residential any more. It is zoned Light Industrial right up to where they are proposing the lot line change, is that correct? MS. ANDALORO: Yes. MS. WICKHAM: Can I clarify that? The parcel was always zoned Light Industrial. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 That was never end piece on Mary's MEMBER DINIZIO: changed to R-407 changed. It was just that Road. The end piece was MS. WICKHAM: Yes. By the Town Board. MR. PETRAUSKAS SR.: Aren't the property owners supposed to be notified? MS. ANDALORO: Sir, there was. There was a notice that was published in the newspaper as required by the law. The Town Board was required to do that. And the hearing took place about a year ago. MR. PETRAUSKAS SR.: I still feel like this application is going to negatively impact the value of my property. And on the basis of that, I would like to ask the Board to consider the impact on the communities. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are there any mitigation of any sorts to take place to reduce some of the impact on the residential properties along Hill Street? MS. WICKHAM: Is that a question for me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 124 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 MS. WICKHAM: I would like to say that impact is really a positive impact because the litigation was brought to restore LI to the entire property. And if this lot line change is not granted by all the applicable agencies, then the litigating -- and I want to be sure that I have this right, that the Divello's potential zoning, which is RO, be reverted back to LI. So what this scenario does, it accomplishes two things. It's keeps the residential character of the easterly side of the property and it also reduces the density -- I'm sorry, maintains the density of a two lot portion of property, and thereby reduces what could possibly be a second use on the remainder of the two. So that is something that is potential less extensive -- intensive. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: other questions from the MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are there any Board members? Joe, and please, if December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 125 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I am saying this incorrectly, the Planning Board will be involved in the pieces across the street from you. It is that venue that you really need to discuss the questions that you made at this particular point. Ail we are doing with this, is the change of the house on the corner, which is a positive change because it's going back to more of a residential nature. MR. PETRAUSKAS SR.: Sure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted you to be aware of that. So watch it when the Planning Board gets involved. MR. PETRAUSKAS SR.: (In Audible). (Stepped away from the micorphone.) MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right, but the to that point. MR. PETRAUSKAS SR.: Okay. If there were some type of fencing or cover that would at least to obtain the appearance -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I brought it up so that the counsel could address it from an impact standpoint, and you heard that. Those types of noise or abatement, you will have a time where you can address those December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 concerns because the are the ones that do MR. PETRAUSKAS SR.: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: clear on who gets to hear MR. PETRAUSKAS SR.: your time and hearing me CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: appearing before the Board. No other comments or (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: to make a motion to reserve decision to Planning Board, they site plan approval. Okay. Just so we are what. Thank you for out. Thank you for suggestions? Okay. I am going close this hearing and a later date subject to receipt of a revised survey. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6611 - DANIEL DEVITO December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So we are going to resume then with the hearing of Mr. Devito. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. Okay. So what's up? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Okay. We looked at moving the pool to make it conforming. Moving it towards the roadside of the house. To make it conforming and not needing any variance at all. There is a generator and gas tank located, I believe it should be noted on the drawing. It's on the further of the driveway and south of the house. It would force the pool to continue to go landward quite a distance -- do you need me to point it out? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Fuel tank -- MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes. So with that and put it in any logical spot, it my December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 would force it to go at least 50 feet if no further landward. Probably about 200-250 feet away from the closest access to the house to use the bathroom or any facilities. They are not looking to put in accessory bathrooms or structures or whatever. They want a nice, clean simple look. So we are trying to keep it as simple as possible. They also have handicapped people in the family. That makes it easier for the family obviously. It's closer to the pool. And then back to the point with the young kids of the family, that is for some people to keep an eye on them from the screened porch. This works out very nice for them. So these are the points that we brought up. We respectfully respect that you entertain this. I would also like to get you a few and locations of other pools located names in side yard lots that I can follow-up. I don't have them with me right now, but I would like to submit them to you and ask for your understanding of the circumstance and consideration for the approval in this December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 129 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 circumstance. As far as the distance from the water, we are talking about that 50 foot. It seems to me to be more of a Trustees issue and not a ZBA issue, in my opinion. But if it's making a difference in sliding it back 15 feet or 12 feet back further from the bluff, that is not an issue because it's not going to affect the distance that much from the house to the pool with that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: little a more. You are the pool and the patio landward; correct? Let me clarify this proposing to move and everything MR. CICHANOWICZ: Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And still maintain a side yard? CICHANOWICZ: same proposed MR. stay the of the house, The side yard would and come closely to the side and helpful to neighbor who wants a little more privacy to the area. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you discussed possibly attaching the pool somehow to the house? MR. CICHANOWICZ: We talked about it. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 130 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 would be something that we would have to investigate to see -- MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure. MR. CICHANOWICZ: To see structurally on how that is obtainable and how if the Building Department will even consider it an attached structure built in such a manner. So there is a lot of unknown. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure. I understand. MR. CICHANOWICZ: We couldn't just say yes and whatever. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you like some further time to investigate that as an option? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, but I don't know if you are ready to make a decision or discuss this or what have you. They really don't want to attach it to the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then that is that. Then what we should do is close this hearing subject to receipt of additional information on the character of the neighborhood, which you said you would like to submit. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And possibly an December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 131 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 updated site plan? MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes. If you could just hold until I can resubmit a plan of a newly proposed location, which would make it more landward then is. A little slightly closer to the house that is. I need to do some landscape magic to work. The way it is now, it's easy. Now, I am throwing in a lot of other things, but still may be considerable easy then moving it way up the front yard and more structures, which is not the Devito's look to make more structures on the property. They love the native look, and they want to keep it as pure and simple as possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we can do is close this hearing today subject to receipt of information from you, an amended plan -- MR. CICHANOWICZ: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the sooner can that we move. MR. get it, the faster that we we CICHANOWICZ: Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When we get will then start the clock and have it, December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 132 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 deliberations. We have 62 days closing to make a decision. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Okay. from the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that if we close it today, probably deliberate two weeks from today. If you get it to us in week, we still may be able to make that. not, then at the next meeting, which will be a month from today. MR. CICHANOWICZ: My intention is to get it to you this week. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does anyone else on the Board have any other questions or comments at this point? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Anyone else a you could incorporate from the audience? MS. MOORE: If giving my client an opportunity to view and respond to it, since I couldn't get them here. Mr. Macari has difficulty getting around. Whatever timeframe you come up with, if you can send it to me and give me like another couple of days to meet with the client and show it to them. December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am not sure that is somewhat overstepping the procedural -- you know, protocol of the Board. We have done it before. What has happened that they would submit it to the office, and the office, as a courtesy will let you know that it's in and you can have a look at it. MS. MOORE: That's fine. As long as I can have some time for my client to submit some form of written -- it may not anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will tell you what I will do. Let me adjourn this to the special meeting in two weeks. We will close it then. have to do. If Which means that both of you two weeks to do whatever you want you can get it to us in like a week, then they can have some time to respond and get it back to the Board. I just ask that you submit comments to them as a courtesy. MS. MOORE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Make sure that everyone is on the same page and everyone has the same information. Then we will December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 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 close two weeks additional additional it at the Special Meeting, which is from today. Assuming we have no questions. If we have more questions, then we have the right to adjourn this to the regular month from today. So everyone can and inquire and resolve this in agreeable MR. CICHANOWICZ: you in 13 days. MS. MOORE: I respect him, and I know he can do it quickly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the motion before this Board is to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on December 20th subject to receipt of an meeting a come back whatever way they think. Is that to everyone? MEMBER HORNING: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So I am going to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on December 20th, and we will take commentary only in writing up until that time. MS. MOORE: That's assuming we have the documents in time. I don't know how soon -- We will get it to December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 135 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 amended survey and information on character of the neighborhood, subject to review and comments by the neighborhood. Written only. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. favor? (See Minutes for Resolution.) (Whereupon, the December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting concluded.) December 6, 2012 Regular Meeting 136 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 CERTIFICATION 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 accurate record of the Hearings. Signature' ~ ~ Jesdica DiLallo Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter PO Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 Date: December 17, 2012