Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/03/2013 Hearing 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 RECEZVED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JAN 22 2813 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK ........................................... B~kARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall Southold, New York January 3, 2013 10:45 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - GERARD GOEHRINGER JAMES DINIZIO, JR. KENNETH SCHNEIDER GEORGE HORNING Chairperson/Member - Member Member - Member Member VICKI TOTH Secretary JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter P.O. Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 (631)-338-1409 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing: Thomas Spurge, #6615 Mariusz Jachimowicz, #6612 New Suffolk Waterfront Fund, And Robin's Island Holdings, New Suffolk Waterfront Fund, Peter and Diane Mollica, #6618 Betty Hermann, #6614 Michael J. Hirschhorn, #6619 LLC Inc. %6616 %6617 Page: 3-10 10-17 17-85 17-85 85-94 94-104 104-114 January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 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 #6615 - THOMAS SPURGE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thomas Spurge, #6615. Request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 12, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on application for building permit for additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling: 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, located at: 3145 Manhanset Avenue in Greenport. Is there somebody here to represent that application? MS. MARTIN: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning. Could you state your name, please, for the record? MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin, from the firm of Robert I. Brown Architect and Fairweather Design Associates, representing Thomas Spurge, the applicant. This is a request to put a second-story on a pre-nonconforming setback where the house is 10.2 inches closer to the rear property January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 4 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 line already, and we're not changing the footprint in any way shape or form. We just wanted a second-story to it. There are -- it's the same as other houses in the neighborhood. These are mostly nonconforming lots, and that's the only reason we're before you, because this is an increase of a nonconforming lot. The highest -- the second-story to the highest point under the ease, is 17 foot 7 inches. Where it's currently, I believe, about 8 foot something on the ground floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let's see if the Board has anything. Is there anything else you want to say, Amy? MS. MARTIN: I don't think so. It's pretty straight forward. The Spurge's own the property most effected behind it, which is going to be their retirement home, and they just want to make it large enough to enjoy. Eventually, I guess, use the property that they currently own behind it as place to put friends when they come to visit. They just bought this house recently and it wouldn't be going on the January 3, 2013 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 market or anything. It's for something that they want to live in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. George, any questions? MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Looking at the site plan measurements for setbacks of the rear yard versus the survey that we have, the survey gives distances of 24 foot 7 inches, 24 foot 8 inches on the other corner. And then you have 24.10, what is the most accurate distance would you say? MS. MARTIN: I guess, I am not sure I have the survey with me. MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned just a 10 foot 2 inch discrepancy. little bit more than that? MS. MARTIN: I guess we the survey. I am not sure So it may be a opposed to the code required 35 foot. MS. MARTIN: George, do you have date of the survey and the surveyor? MEMBER HORNING: August 30th -- the have to go by CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the Notice of Disapproval actually refers to the site plan. It's closer to 24.10 feet setback as January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MARTIN: Then I am assuming that our drawer's made an error on that and it would be what the survey says. Unless the second-story is recessed that iota of two inches or so. MEMBER HORNING: It doesn't seem like it would be on the diagram though. Did you submit both of these documents to the Building Department? MS. MARTIN: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: What is the foundation consist of? MS. MARTIN: It's a brick foundation. MEMBER HORNING: Is there a basement? Crawl space? MS. MARTIN: Yes, there is a basement. MEMBER HORNING: And just out of curiosity, I noticed that what would be the northwest corner there, with the neighbor seeming to be very close proximity to -- like he had a wood pile or something? Does he have to walk on your property? MS. MARTIN: It's Tom's property. The wood pile is on the applicant's property. MEMBER HORNING: And that's the January 3, 2013 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 applicant's wood pile you're saying? MS. MARTIN: I believe so. Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, any questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: discrepancies site plan for the like the smallest 24.7 feet. I am going what the proposed site also? MS. MARTIN: I Just the between the survey and the rear yard setback. Looks setback on the survey is to assume that is plan is looking for submit the property know, to the survey, be what -- MEMBER SCHNEIDER: issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: handle that internally. MS. MARTIN: It's 24 and they averaged it out will very happily site plan revised, you if that turns out to rather than the .7. MEMBER questions. CHAIRPERSON It's a technical I think we can foot 10 inches to 10 inches WEISMAN: Gerry? SCHNEIDER: I have no further January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 8 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER applicant the rear? MS. owns the adjoining lot summer home. GOEHRINGER: Did you say the purchased additional property in MARTIN: No, he owns it. His wife lot behind the home. The where they currently have a MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the site plan where you calculated the lot coverage at 18.9, was that on the site or did that include the lot in the back also? MS. MARTIN: No, no. That is just site. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the only the addition to this property is the garage? MS. MARTIN: The garage with a living space above. The additional lot coverage is just the garage, which as you can see just north of the residence. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a pretty small lot. MS. MARTIN: It was subdivided in the 60's for whatever. That was previous. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Believe it or not, it was one of the first ones that I sat on January 3, 2013 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 in the 1980's when they actually built the house, if I am not mistaken. I think one of the particular questions at that time was, are you going to exceed lot coverage and he said absolutely not. That was one of the issues that I had. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have no further questions. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON further comments, close the hearing later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: WEISMAN: Hearing no I will make a motion to and reserve decision to Gerry. Ail in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. Second. Seconded by a January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6612 - MARIUSZ JACHIMOWICZ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Mariusz Jachimowicz. Please correct me if I mispronounced your name, #6612. Request for variances from Article XXIII Code Section 280-123 and the Building Inspector's November 9, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on am application for building permit for "as built" alteration/addition to an existing dwelling at; 1) a nonconforming building containing a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved, unless the use of such building is changed to a conforming use, the "as built" structure is considered a second dwelling on the property, located at: 9395 Main Road in Mattituck. Good morning. MR. DANTES: Good morning. My name is Eric Dantes, and I represent January 3, 2013 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 Mr. Jachimowicz and his wife -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would spell your name for the record? MR. DANTES: D-A-N-T-E-S. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. would you like to tell us? MR. DANTES: It's basically a property that was setup in the 1950's. It was setup as a three family property, and then one of the houses burned down. So now it's a two family property with two separate dwellings Jachimowicz would like to the rear dwelling and he needs a to do that because it's a you please on it. And Mr. renovate variance nonconforming property, and his consist of adding a 12X4 closet existing bedroom, and it would square feet to which is about What renovations onto the add 48 the rear of the dwelling, 1,000 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: construction come Department's MR. DANTES: Mr. Jachimowicz CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Went building permit? plans attention? How did the to the Building in for a January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 12 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 yes . MR. DANTES: Went in for a permit, CHAIRPERSON building permit? MR. DANTES: CHAIRPERSON given a Notice WEISMAN: Is there a NO. WEISMAN: So of Disapproval you were inspection so it's clear that some progress has been made on the alterations. That's fine. I just wanted to clarify what the circumstances were. Let's see what the Board has to say about this. This property does have a Pre-CO? MR. DANTES: Yes. Two Pre-CO's. One for each dwelling. I can give you a copy of that, if you would like? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think we have them in our file. Let's see if Ken has any questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Who is doing the work? MR. DANTES: Mr. Jachimowicz is. He is doing it himself. He does have a -- MR. DANTES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We all did site January 3, 2013 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 do the electrical I have no further I can pass it to Why don't we go licensed electrician to work and plumbing. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: questions at this time. another Board member. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: down the line. George? MEMBER HORNING: I am curious about past history. You briefly alluded to a fire. And I see that there was a building permit issued for construction from after structures on it, and there is a big "X" on one of the structures. MEMBER HORNING: No, I don't believe that we have that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, we don't have that. MR. DANTES: I have that in here. I don't think that it has existed in the last fire damage. Which building are we talking about? MR. DANTES: If you go to the tax map. The only thing that I really know about it is, if you go to the tax map that you have here, you can see that there are three January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 is not 20 years, the first structure. He asking to rebuild that. MEMBER HORNING: The building permit issued was never acted upon then? MR. DANTES: I honestly don't know. He just bought the property in August of this year. Last year, 2012. So I don't know that much. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When the sale of the property was issued, it would have indicated that there were three structures on this property and there are not three structures on this property. To your applicants knowledge, there was never a third structure that your applicant was purchasing? MR. DANTES: No. MEMBER HORNING: Is there a crawl space under this building? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sir, if you are going to answer questions, you're going to have to come to the microphone, because we record this, as we're required by law to do. State your name, please. January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JACHIMOWICZ: Mariusz Jachimowicz. is the basement and And how do you access From outside. I walked around it 20 percent of the house the rest of crawl space. MEMBER HORNING: the basement? MR. JACHIMOWICZ: MEMBER HORNING: earlier -- MR. JACHIMOWICZ: by tarp. MEMBER HORNING: The entry is covered Okay. And all of these, let's call them structural alterations were put on without a permit; is that correct? MR. DANTES: Yes. Well, was to repair the building. was, while he was doing it -- being it and one thing led MEMBER HORNING: of it. MR. DANTES: MEMBER HORNING: MR. DANTES: 48 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: a derelict building when to another. building his intent What happened it ended up you got into He enlarged the size The building? Yes. square feet. Otherwise, you January 3, 2013 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 are before us because there is an enlargement of the nonconformity. Had it been repaired in place and in kind, it might have been available to have a building permit as of right, in kind and replacement. Jim, do you have any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I just want to clear one thing. There is three structures. There is a shed on this property. There is not three principal structures. There is a small accessory shed. MR. DANTES: I believe there is. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted to be clear on that for the record, that there was not only two structures on the property. That's all I MR. DANTES: Okay. MEMBER structures. MEMBER attempt, basement MR. have. DINIZIO: So two principal GOEHRINGER: Is there any sir, to utilize any part of this area for habitable space? DANTES: No, it's going to be a January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 17 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 basement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? 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 #6616 - NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND, INC. AND ROBIN'S ISLAND - HEARING #6617 NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for New Suffolk Waterfront Fund Incorporated and January 3, 2013 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 Robin's Island Holdings, LLC. That is application %6616. We have another application. I am going to open both of them simultaneously. We can address that way together or separately. I will read them both into the record. The first application, #6616. Request for variances from Article XIII Code Section 280-56 and the Building Inspector's September 18, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit for a minor subdivision at; 1) lot size less than the code required 80,000 square feet per Bulk Schedule in MII District, 2} lot size less than the code required 160,000 square feet for the 650 and Street, Harbor in New application is for Special Section 280-55 in a Marine II First Street, proposed second use, located at: 380 First Street, corner of Jackson Main Street, adjacent to Cutchogue Suffolk. The next #6617, which is a request Exception per Article XIII Street. (B)i to operate a restaurant District, located at: 650 corner Jackson Street, Main Adjacent to Cutchogue Harbor in January 3, 2013 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 New Suffolk. Is there someone here to represent this application, Gall? MS. WICKHAM: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry, know, you have to state your name -- MS. WICKHAM: Sure. My name is Abigail Wickham and I at 13015 Main Mattituck, New York, representing the applicant. I would like to advise the Board that we have here today, Schnitzler who is the Chair of you Road, Barbara the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund Board. Valerie Marvin who is representing Robin's Island Holding. Martin Reed who has been doing the survey work, and also Joe Fischetti who is an engineer that has been consulting with us on the project. As well as a number of Board members from the Waterfront Fund and other interested parties. So we're going to try and go through some brief presentations without going to reiterate everything that is already in the application. And then I am sure the Board will have some questions. We have all January 3, 2013 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 these people here to hopefully answer them. I am really excited to be here today. This is what I consider, the third phase of a multi phase project. The first was the acquisition of the project from Peconic Land Trust, who in turn had acquired it from active commercial development after many years of attempting to focus on what could be preserved from that prime piece of property. The second phase following the acquisition was the evaluation and development of a concept plan, once the Waterfront Fund had a chance to actually own and be on the property for a while. To figure out what would be an attractive usable and financially viable project in order to go forward. Now, we're commencing. Having done that, commencing an approval stage for the land as a result of the contracted Robin's Island Holdings acquisition of approximately one acre. Accompanied by a large scale preservation of that property through a conservation easement held by Peconic Land Trust, which I will describe a little bit later on. January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That will be on parcel two. And a conservation easement that is in the works through New York State Parks for a bulk of parcel one to keep that area open and park like. The resubdiv±sion that we appear before you today is to realign the properties and to also confirm the uses that have historically been predominant on this property on parcel one in order to enable it to retain economic viability and historical usage after the acre is transferred to Robin's Island Holding. The fourth phase will be the site plan phase and that is where the determination of the actual location of the building, the layout, the site improvement will be developed and formalized. That is in the beginning stages now, but we will undoubtedly be back here and certainly to the Planning Board with the details of that ultimate site plan. And then finally phase five will be actually constructing and doing the work. We're are working on that now. Ail of those five phases, as you can imagine, require constant fundraising. January 3, 2013 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 They have a phenomenal group that has been doing it. The aspect of the fundraising of this phase three involved, is taking the funds from the purchase of that one acre from Robin's Island and the New York State Conservation easement grant in order to pay down -- payoff the acquisition loan that was incurred in order to acquire the property and also to start the development process. Robin's Island Holdings has supported the efforts of the community to make this project happen, and we think that it will produce a result that will meet the goals of New Suffolk community. It will provide public access to the waterfront, provide public parking, which is severely needed in this area, and essentially provide, not just to New Suffolk, to the Town, a tremendous facility. So let me address specifics as to the variances and the request for the special exception. There are two variances, as you mentioned. The Robin's Island Holdings parcel would be increased 3.42 times up to 68,808 square feet. Oddly that is not quite big enough January 3, 2013 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 under MII. So we are here on a rather odd application. To let you tell us that's okay even though it's not 80,000 square feet. And then the second variance is to restore two primary uses on less than 160,000 square feet, which is the area that will remain on parcel one after the transfer of the one acre to Robin's Island Holdings. That will be an area over a little over 100,000 square feet. So those two properties have to go hand in hand, as well as confirmation of Special Exception that we have requested to allow the restaurant usage to be resumed. Financially, the Waterfront Fund is not in a position to proceed with the actual site plan elements and the construction details. So we're asking you to look at our conceptual plan and come back at a further time for relief on an actual site plan details, but we think that the actual types of the uses and the way that they fit into this property, we hope you will be able to consider favorably. On Variance #1, where we have less than 80,000 square feet, the January 3, 2013 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 conservation easement, which I will give you an outline of it at the end of the hearing, will restrict the ability to use most of that property for structures. It's going to create great privacy for Robin's Island Holdings. It's going to allow them to solve an overflow parking problem in New Suffolk, as parking is very important. And it also will preserve open space. The variance as I said, is kind of contorted as I said, because we're asking to increase the size of the parcel three or four, but still it's not quite big enough. We hope you will consider that favorably under the code. I just wanted to give you a rough idea of what uses will be allowed on the -- on the Robin's Island Holdings portion of the increased acre. It will allow for, low profile maritime grasslands with associated plantings. I will hand this into you so you don't have to all write it down. Low profile perimeter fencing. Landscaping, which will be designed and maintained so it's not to substantially interfere with scenic values of the property which further January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the visual aim of protecting the Peconic Bay view shed. Their considering a low profile (In Audible) like they have on their adjoining property on the beach side. The only improvement, if you will, will be a small shed or a building that is going to be attached to the Robin's Island Holdings building to hold boat storage. That will probably be seasonal boat storage and a permeable parking area. Both of those are shown on your maps. The Planning Board has asked us to remove the boat shed from the map because it's not actually been built yet, but this is an conceptual idea of what it would look like. They may change the size or the configuration of it slightly but that's just to give you an idea of what would be on that property and that's it. That we think is a huge, huge benefit to New Suffolk as a result of that agreement. The second variance is for the two primary uses of the marina and the restaurant. Really is not asking anything different than what is already there, and has been there for many, many years. I would like January 3, 2013 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 to mention that given the property size, those two primary uses and what they're going to demand of the property will automatically eliminate from that property any other uses that could come in under an MII Zone, which are pretty intensive. Those would be things like large boat storage racks, which is one thing that got this property to where it is in the first place. Ferry terminal, big commercial restaurants, hotels and motels and fish processing plants. If you have a marina and a restaurant on this property, you're not going to be able to have any of those other things. We think this proposal is much less obnoxious then what could be there. Second, each use will be moderately sized and in keeping with the property and is going to go through the other reviews that proceed with. The marina is 24 slips in size. That size dictated by the size of the not going to see the size of New Suffolk Shipyard. site plan and all is -- that we must approximately is going to be lot. You are a marina like It's a very small January 3, 2013 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 marina. It's important to maintain the marina usage historically and for access and transient dockage, but it does provide because of the limited number of slips very limited income and it's largely seasonal income. This past year they brought in $21,000.00. They will be upgrading the docks and making more usable, but in the long run, they're not going to see a huge amount of income from 24 slips. That is why some of the prior proposals on this property proposed big boat storage sheds and all these other things that would go with a marina. New Suffolk Waterfront Fund does not want to do that. They want to keep the restaurant as a modest usage and the code considers that a primary usage so that is why we're here for you today. So as far as the restaurant, I just want to ask who in this room doesn't wish they could still get a burger at the Galley House? And I hope that that would be enough to get you to grant this project all together, but assuming it's not, the use has historically followed this property and January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Board's vision for the restaurant use is really all cafe. The word, "cafe" doesn't really appear in the code. That is really the scale that they're looking at. It's really going to be a small operation that can provide a community gathering place. A simple meal, somebody that has the ability to come in from the beach, while they're boating or just visiting, and provide a necessary income for the Waterfront, so they can sustain the property. The engineer has advised us based on the size of the property, 118 seats are available with a sanitary capacity of that property. The prior restaurant had limitations of with Suffolk County 95 seats. And with parking and food service Health Department that and review, we really don't know what the full number will be. That is something that will come back at the site plan stage. That will involve Health Department and Planning Board input. And also the restaurant building will be moved back and if it's not 75 feet from the bulkhead, you January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will be seeing us again on that, but we have to go through that as we go through. The other thing that I would like to mention is that the proposed site intensity of this place, property is probably significantly less than any other property in New Suffolk because those are -- very many of them are wall to wall. So this is really going to have a lot of open space. A lot of parking and it will adjoin the Robin's Island acre, which will be largely open. I would also like to remind the Board that both of these two uses existed for many, many years side by side on this property and really just on the north side of Main Street part of the property because the acre that is going to Robin's Island Holding really wasn't the restaurant marina except for large boat storage, which really isn't going to be happening. And also when those uses were there for many years you were dealing with miserable parking lots, boats all over the place. You also had marinas servicing storage. A lot of things going on. So this is going to be much more January 3, 2013 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 modest. Much more contained and I don't think dual primary use of marina and restaurant will be at all out of place here. As far as the Special Exception, which you have also opened up, I am not going to repeat all the tedious language I have put in the application, which I tried to track from the code as to what you need to find and I don't want to repeat what I just said, but much of the prior discussion does apply to the Special Exception. So at this point, I would prefer to move on and have Barbara say a few words and then see what questions you might have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before we do this, I would like to enter some letters. We just received the LWRP from our coordinator and I record to reflect the recommendations would like the fact that with regard to the Special Exception is considered exempt -- this particular one refers to the subdivision. They're under two separate application numbers. The point is, it's just been received and it's considered exempt with regard to the lot line change January 3, 2013 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 and with regard to the restaurant use, it is considered consistent with the goals of the LWRP. I have copies for your records. MS. WICKHAM: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would also like to enter into the record comments that we received from the Planning Board. If you don't have any copies, I have them, if you want to approach. MS. WICKHAM: I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is the LWRP and that you don't have. And this is for local determination from Suffolk County for your file. I just want the audience to know what some comments were. I am going to summarize from the Planning Board. This is a letter dated December 18th. We sent this to them for their recommendation. They in general, support this proposal although they don't normally support the idea of creating a nonconforming sizes. In this case, I am paraphrasing but it is a quote, "the proposal minimizes development potential of the subject property, protects public access to the water and will January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 preserve the water view shed through the conversation easements placed over key areas of the property..." I am omitting some stuff. These goals are consistent with the Town's comprehensive plan. So I want you to be aware of their comments. Also we have received, and I am sure we will have more comments from the audience, two letters of support from some of your neighbor's, no doubt. One is from Joe McKay and basically reiterating the fact that the restaurant use is fairly essential to your plans for sustaining the development of this property. It also clear that it's a very collaborative and creative way that you have approached packaging these very complicated elements. It will not only create opportunity for preservation for the future and today, but will also require some sort of ongoing sustained income, and in order to continue with your plan. I should just let you know that this Board will want to entertain the Special Exception permit because I know you need the reassurance that that is going to January 3, 2013 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 be in place. But we will likely have to condition it to site plan approval should this be granted. And in addition to that, subject to any further variance relief you may require once you determine where this Galley is actually to be located and whether or not you're going to expand it or leave it at the same size. That would be an expansion of a nonconforming use. The other letter that we received from Jim Braslow, an e-mail from Julie Saul. The only concern was for parking. These are issues that I am sure you are all concerned with with regard to traffic impacts and so on. It's a small hamlet. Small hamlet center. Those are all things that will resolved with site plan review. I just want to make you aware of that. Barbara, if you would, please. MS. SCHNITZLER: Hi, I am Barbara be Schnitzler, 220 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. I am the Chair of the Waterfront Fund. Just a few comments. For the last five or six years this organization and our community and our extensive list of January 3, 2013 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 volunteers, there are over raised $1.6 million dollars purchase of this property. 500 donors, have towards the We have done extensive community outreach to figure out what people are interested in seeing on the property. We feel very confident because the restaurant has always come up as the number one thing that everybody wants to see back on this property. We know that it will encourage the vitality. The property is morbid at the moment. Especially since Sandy. And we know that our community, our donors, over two-third's of the property owners in New Suffolk have financially contributed to this project. So we know we have done our homework. We have had two to five community meetings every year. The Land Trust taught us how to do that and then we taught ourselves. We send out newsletters. We have a bulletin board, we have a Facebook, website. So we have tried to be transparent. We have listened to the public and we feel that our site plan reflects the publics wishes. We can't continue to solicit money at the rate that January 3, 2013 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 we're been doing it. We have been really lucky so far. We have had very generous donors. We just can't expect people to just keep giving us money at the same rate, and that is why we're trying to make this property self sustaining. We have some time constraints. The Small Business Administration came out after Sandy for damage. They have -- they denied our application for a long term low interest loan, because they said our mortgage is too heavy and we could never pay it back. Both the mortgage and the loan. So we want to get this mortgage situated and cleared up, which we can do with the sale of this property, and the money from the State grant. So time is really of the essence in your decision. I also dug up out of my files the previous plan for this property, and this is really what got everybody mobilized to buy this property and preserve it. It is a landmark. We want to preserve it. We're preserving the three buildings. We want to renovate them and reuse them. The south -- and I don't have a copy. I January 3, 2013 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 can make you one, if you're interested. The south side of this site plan for this original plan was parking for 106 cars. The north side was parking for 77 cars, and 153 shrink wrapped boats. So that is what it was going to be and now we're going to give you an idea of what it can be with your help. We hope it will. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very much. Would the Board like to ask some questions or hear more from the audience? George? MEMBER HORNING: Briefly, ma'am, the last speaker. Could you briefly take us through this process? You mentioned Peconic Land Trust and now this organization, the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund and explain to us the status of both of those entities? I am a member of the Town, but I am not a member of New Suffolk. MS. SCHNITZLER: It's complicated. About six years we formed a non-profit, New Suffolk Waterfront Fund, non-profit 501C3. The land trust also is. When this bid proposal came up for the boat rack, our January 3, 2013 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 community -- and it growth of the civic started to say that some way. We hired actually, to advise through the process. was really an out association, people we have to organize in the Peconic Land Trust, us, and they helped us They negotiated the sale with the used their revolving property initially. previous owner and they also fund to pay for the And part of the deal with the revolving fund is that you can only have that money for three years. So after three years, which was two years ago, the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund became the owner of the property. We paid them off didn't have the money still, but we even though we had been fundraising, and we had a loan from a place called Conservation Fund. Another non-profit. They now hold our mortgage, and we're hoping to pay them off now. So the Land Trust is out of the picture for us now, although they will be involved in the easement on the south piece of the property. They will be the organization that oversees that easement. They helped us get on our way, but they're January 3, 2013 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 not involved with us anymore. We operate -- we have a Board of 15 and we operate -- we just do our own thing. MEMBER HORNING: Is it fair to say that then the owner/operator of the boat marina and restaurant is going to be a non-profit corporation geared with a conversation aspect to it? MS. SCHNITZLER: You know, we haven't really figured it out yet. We might lease out. None of us know how to run a restaurant, nor do we want to learn. We don't know how to run a marina. So I think there will be some leases involved. Lots of people are interested in running this restaurant. Informally people have come to us, but we don't have the restaurant use presently. So we were unable really to pursue that. The marina needs a lot of repair. We do have somebody on our Board who is very knowledgeable. Most of us are not. So we're not really sure how that will be. But we know that the Waterfront Fund will be involved. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. One other January 3, 2013 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 question. Hours of operation of the restaurant, do you have any idea? You say you're going to lease out the operation probably. Are they going to operate seasonally, year round? Do you have any idea? MS. SCHNITZLER: We do have a lot of ideas and it's our idea to stay very involved. We haven't worked for the last five or six years to make this happen to hand it over to somebody who might develop it in a way that we don't want it developed. Gall mentioned the septic calculations would allow 118 seats. We have no intention of having a restaurant that big. We see it -- and if you look at the architectural schematic, you can see that we kept the initial Galley Ho. What is left of it. Because it's a landmark, we want to renovate it as it is. And we think that could be a year round operation. Our community would like a destination for the winter. Even if it's just breakfast and lunch, which we think it might be. We want to keep the Galley Ho up and running. The January 3, 2013 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 way the design is done. It's just that there is an additional building, which can be closed off. That could just be open in the summer. We can have a more efficient building by shutting down part of it seasonally. We would like to have something that runs year round. We see a lot more transient dockage as a possibility once we have a food concern going there. We think a lot of the food will be take-out. There is a beach. People can walk on the beach. People can come on their boats. People can bike from Town. There is picnic tables there, a deck. It's a great location. There is very few places where you can eat on the water. The reason I got into this project is because I just want to sit at the picnic table, eat a hot dog and look at the water. Simple things are hard to come by and that is simply what we're trying to do. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And one final question. The Southold Town Fire Inspector, we have a copy of a document, have you seen that? January 3, 2013 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 MS. SCHNITZLER: I haven't seen that. Recently? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's dated 12/26/12. We think we should just enter into the record, most of them are going to be resolved -- actually probably Joe is going to answer most of the questions. They don't necessarily send it to you but we make sure that you get it. We received it December 26th and there were some concerns. Bob Fisher is the Fire Marshal, and this has to do with the Special Exception permit for the restaurant use. And he just went to take a look at the condition that the all have of course, property very well. answered some question, the Galley Ho was in and we most of us know the Gail has already questions. The first will building be moved? And the answer is, of course, yes. To where, we're not sure. The second, is the existing structure viable? Perhaps Joe can address that, or whoever you wish can address it. MS. SCHNITZLER: Joe can address it. January 3, 2013 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 I can address it. Joe feels that it's substantially intact and We're going to move it. leave it on cribs for a while establish where it's going to feels confident that standing. CHAIRPERSON Since we do have Let's let him enter opinion. MR. FISCHETTI: is Joseph Fischetti. I within the Town. Three Sandy, Barbara look at Galley portion of the we stabilize it. We're going to until we go. And Joe it will remain WEISMAN: Let's do this. an expert engineer here. into the record his Good morning. am a civil days after My name engineer Hurricane asked me to come out and Ho building. The rear foundation had been washed out, but the structure was pretty much sound the way that it was. There was no change in the structure that was there. When we discussed the building as it was, I said that it needed to be stabilized and seeing that they were going -- in essence, when analyzing, we were going to lift this building and try and move it out of the B January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 43 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 Zones that it's in now. That would cause us to raise it too high. So we would move it out of the B Zone into the AE Zone, and I said, let's just stabilize it and lift it and keep it on the cribs and keep it stabile until we had a chance to physically do the renovations. And that is the direction that we're taking now. It looks worse than it is, but it is stabile and sound. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, Joe. MS. SCHNITZLER: We would have already moved it but the gas company had to cut the gas lines and they just did that last week. Now I am waiting for confirmation in writing. We already have our contracts with the building moving company. We do expect it to happen soon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am just going to let you, because I want the audience to be completely aware of the comments here. They don't need to be addressed today. They will be in future. Under another comment from Bob Fisher was under some conditions indicated on the proposal, is there enough January 3, 2013 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 water supply to support possible fire sprinklers? Again, that is a life safety code issue. When you get to building permits, you will be addressing that. Location of the building on the lot, will have an effect on prior public safety concerns. Again, site plan review will take you through those and make sure that those conditions are met. More information will be necessary for final determination. That is fairly obvious. And finally, I have no serious objections at this point, which works out for you. I am glad to hear that. We like full disclosure at these public hearings. So everyone is brought up to date with the same information. We don't have any other things that we received that you should know about. At this point, are there questions from the Board or do we want to hear more from the audience? MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to have more discussion about the parking, you know, the marina, the restaurant, add up to the amount of spaces that will be on this property. And what would be available for January 3, 2013 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 the public? MS. WICKHAM: The first thing that I want to do is answer a little bit more on George's question and the Board should be aware of. The Peconic Land Trust does have a right of refusal on this property. So if the Waterfront Fund were to decide to sell the property, the Peconic Land Trust would step in and make sure that it went to the right type of entity in that regard. Now, with respect to the parking. Parking is proposed to be maintained along First Street, where it is now, and also developed a parking area inside, up against Captain Marty's building. They haven't actually scaled it out or done the numbers in terms of site plan. So all of the parking is going to have to be addressed in terms of the site plan. The New York State Conservation easement does require public access. The easement that is shown on your map has not been finally approved yet. We hope that we're very close. They're working on it right now. They require a segment of public parking. So there will be public January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 46 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 parking on this property. We found that there is a lot of overflow parking from the Town beach that comes down here. You know, there is parking issues in New Suffolk and that has been something that has been discussed in all these community meetings and discussed with the public. So definitely parking is going to have to be maximized and made as good as it can. MEMBER DINIZIO: I think what I am looking for, you suggested a couple of uses, the marina and the restaurant. Assuming that they both are successful -- MS. WICKHAM: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there enough parking left for public parking? MS. WICKHAM: There has to be public parking made available. MEMBER DINIZIO: I realize that there has to be. MS. WICKHAM: Well, when we get to the site plan phase the Planning Board is going to require that we do that. One thing that I may mention, to the extent that there is transient dockage, and that is going to be January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 47 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 an important aspect of this project and the marina, those people will not be bringing cars. They will be coming by boat. So to the extent that the marina has transient dockage, I don't know how the code works with that, but logically, if you come by boat, you don't need to bring a car. So there are also a lot of people in New Suffolk who come there by bicycle or what not. So I am not saying that that doesn't mean that we don't need to have that much parking, but it does mitigate it to some extent, and the demands for parking. MEMBER DINIZIO: But you feel that there is going to be enough parking? MS. WICKHAM: Yeah. When there was a marina and a restaurant there before they had enough parking on the site. It was sort of that gravely lot in the middle. Now it's going to be shifted. MEMBER DINIZIO: Because we did get a letter of concern about that. MS. WICKHAM: Just to give you a description of it now, there is parking along the front that we're going to have to January 3, 2013 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 speak to the Town about maintaining. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gail, could you go back to the mic? We just want to make sure we're picking you up on the recorder. MS. WICKHAM: There are 40 spaces there. So all the way from First Street back to where the marina accessory building is, will be two lanes of parking on either side of the center aisle. So there will be parking along the front. And Robin's Island Holdings, all of their overflow parking will now be able to be contained on their site. So they will not be going over into the public parking areas. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the onset density is going to be for us to determine what on. the capacity for the restaurant is. MS. WICKHAM: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Of course and so MS. WICKHAM: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would think that this issue can be resolved through site plan approval successfully. They really understand those codes and what is January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 required for various uses. It is a concern. I am sure it's a greater concern to you -- MS. WICKHAM: It is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You live there. I am sure you are not looking for adverse impact on the quality of your own life and the creation of additional traffic. You are for the the Southold Town. One doesn't know how to predict the intensity of that use but like most beaches and amenities, one would assume that one would come to the Galley Ho and enjoy the beach. That needs to be resolved through site plan. Did you have any more questions, Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. The building itself, I read an article that you are going to be moving that. And the placement of it, has that been finalized? Will that need variances also? MS. WICKHAM: Well, as I mentioned before and Barbara mentioned, it will be moved. It will be moved back from the making something available not just residents of New Suffolk but for bulkhead. And the attempt is going to get January 3, 2013 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 it out of the B Zone and into the AE Zone. I don't know without scaling it out and figuring everything out, whether it will 75 feet away or somewhat less. As I mentioned before, we might have to come back here for a variance to ask that you consider something from what -- from what this point is, 15-20 feet -- 18 feet. So it would be more than 18 feet and much closer to 75 feet. I can't say again. We're not in a point to have been able to developed a full blown site plan. We have discussed it with the Building Inspector. We have had several meetings with Mr. Verity and trying to get a handle on all the different requirements. It is quite possible that we will need a further variance. We didn't -- let me just mention, there are two reasons why we didn't do that. One is the amount of money and time it takes to get to the point where we can actually produce a site plan, is considerable. And Number Two, Robin's Island Holdings is very interested in moving forward with this process without us waiting through where the parking is going January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 51 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 and all those other details. And as Barbara mentioned, time is important in terms of funding and reducing that mortgage. And until we can close with Robin's Island Holdings, we're not going to reduce the mortgage. MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, my concern is that we're going to approve something -- MS. WICKHAM: Well, it's going to have to be subject to any further approvals as Leslie mentioned earlier. And if we can't get a site plan approval without another variance then implicitly, we won't. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. That's my concern. MS. WICKHAM: I understand that. MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, if you can't be definitive about where that restaurant is going to be placed, which is something in all variances. We're very definitive on surveys and -- MS. WICKHAM: I understand. MEMBER DINIZIO: It doesn't appear we're going to have that. That's going to be sticky. January 3, 2013 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 MS. WICKHAM: Let me just say this, there is room on the property to put the building all the way back. The contention is how much open space in the middle do you want to preserve and you know, you have a park area there and you want parking. So that's going to be the balancing that we're going to have to evaluate in terms of getting the site plan to you and then adjudicate it. So there is a lot of conceptual ideas that come in, in terms of balancing that, because yeah, you can plunk the restaurant right down the middle of the property and then the closer you get it to the street, the more you impact the views. The more you use up the land that is now used for community gathering and all kinds of activities that the Waterfront is so great about promoting. We don't have a definitive answer, but as you can see, everything is looked at very carefully with a great deal of scrutiny and a great deal of forethought. MEMBER DINIZIO: But the picnic table is where you're going to eat the hog dog January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 53 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at the at MS. WICKHAM: MEMBER DINIZIO: restaurant? MS. WICKHAM: No. right now. Yeah. That is not part of That's where we're MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, again, we're going to need to be consistent in our decision. I mean, you gave me something to bite on there. You have a concept. You want to follow through with that concept. We can't grant a variance based on a concept. You have to have something definitive and drawn out -- MS. WICKHAM: We're not asking -- we're asking you to allow two uses and we're asking you for a Special Exception to allow a restaurant. How big that restaurant is going to be, that's a whole other application and we understand that. And I think my papers say that just in case there is any questions. We fully understand that there is another level of approval. We would love to do it all today but we can't. MEMBER DINIZIO: So we can make that a January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 54 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 condition? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's clear that the reason here is financial. That you need some insurance going forward that certain things will be in place before you can finalize other things. Otherwise, Jim, is absolutely right. One of the questions that I had was where is this going to be located? Will it require an additional variance, and you have answered that to my satisfaction, Gail. You are not at that point yet, and that you would be back before us, if you need to. And we will have to condition things based on that. So it's very clear that that use is dependant upon exactly where it's going to be located, conforming or not. I actually had a question about the marina accessory here. Is that intended to be moved or is that going to stay where it is? MS. WICKHAM: The plan for that building is to leave it where it is. It's been there for many years. It doesn't need extensive renovations as I understand it January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 55 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 but it's -- it's going to be used for people using the marina ordinarily. To a place to be. Lockers and things like that. barn have Marina office? now. They thought they could have movies and show that off that type of thing. Put sheet up. MS. SCHNITZLER: Two of the three buildings are (In Audible) listed and the property has been landmarked. I am very embarrassed to say until I talked to Jim Graph was a landmark Commissioner and I didn't know knew that it it was that I did not know that yesterday. I for six years was all eligible but I a local landmark. So we a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MS. WICKHAM: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What's storage on the property? MS. WICKHAM: The barn is a very old barn. It is going to be maintained as storage, because you can't ever have property without storage. There has been no plans to develop that into anything but storage. They keep garden equipment in it with the January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will do everything to preserve those buildings and make them appropriately, adaptively to keep them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, did you have any questions that you wanted to make? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. MS. GRANT: My name is Lauren Grant and I live at 2980 (In Audible) Road in New Suffolk. And I just wanted to address Mr. Dinizio's issues on parking. In New Suffolk, it's been an ongoing problem with the public beach now. It's so popular with people coming all over the city to come and use the beach. The e-mail that you received probably addresses that as well, because people who probably don't want to use the public parking lot go along all the side streets in New Suffolk. So that is a condition that is being addressed by the New Suffolk Civic Association, as past president of the New Suffolk Civic Association. There is correspondence galore between myself and the supervisor at the time. Scott has been wonderful in working with us and trying to make -- he has put up January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 dozens of parking signs to try and designate to park where in New Suffolk. We have many people who come and park on the streets and then walk to the beach. So I know having spoken to Ms. Saul about that, that is a great concern of hers. The Civic Association is also trying to work with her and other residents in the area who have ongoing problems with parking on homes. As far as the Waterfront is concerned, they have been very consciousness and helped with this ongoing problem in trying to create a parking lot that is next to Captain Marty's, which really holds a lot of people. We also work with Legend's and helping them work with their parking. So it's a very strong issue that is very prevalent on everyone's mind. I just wanted to let you know that it's very, very much on everybody's mind. And the Civic Association as well, is constantly trying to work on it and improve it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Does any other Board members have any questions? Do you want to come forward? January 3, 2013 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 MR. MAUL: Good morning. My name is George Maul. I live at 375 First Street in New Suffolk. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you please spell your name. MR. MAUL: M-A-U-L. It's across the street from the Robin's Island property and from the property that we're talking about. I am also the landlord for the New Suffolk Post Office. I have been the landlord for 20 years. I am very concerned about parking. When the Peconic Land Trust originally brought this property, they held a series of meetings at the schoolhouse for the purpose of obtaining consensus of the community about what the use of the property should be. And there were bulletin boards at the schoolhouse and every one was given a dot -- every one in the community was given a dot and asked to put where they thought they should put it in what they thought the property should be. And some of the uses were park, open space, restaurant, post office -- I don't remember what the other ones were. I do January 3, 2013 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 remember that the first two popular uses were open space and park. And now I am concerned because the property has passed through the Waterfront Fund, and it appears to me that they're trying to put all of the uses on this one property. And I don't understand how, if the purpose is preservation, that all of these uses are being brought in or more uses than just one or two. And why those one or two were not the originally meeting in the space and park. asked for in the consensus community, which were open Now I also understand that there are financial issues about the property. And I have heard proposals about it being a snack bar, which I think is maybe reasonable. And now it's a proposal for a restaurant. The proposals on this property have changed over and over. And over the past five years they continued to (In Audible) sideways and I would hope that at some point, the Waterfront Fund would come up with a real site plan and a real set of uses so that the entire community can get behind the issue and feel confident January 3, 2013 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 about it. And I think the Board should deny the Special Exception for a restaurant until there is a site plan. I completely support the subdivision and Robin's Island and what they want to do there. I think that is wonderful. I think that everything that Robin's Island has done in the community area is wonderful. But I am concerned about the restaurant. I am concerned about the septic system. Not because there is going to be one, but in order to have a septic system, you know, three feet above the groundwater, that septic system has to come up higher. Now where Robin's Island is now, they have raised the property six feet, and if you want to talk about a scenic vista, you can't see any scenic vista when you raise the property six feet to put septic system underneath. And you stand up on the street and you see dirt here. That is not a scenic vista. You can't see the water there. Now, I don't know what that means in terms of a site plan for these properties, but I think we need to see that January 3, 2013 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 to see if there is any open space. If the road is two feet lower than the property, there is iow profile fencing. We have to know what this is and see what it is. View shed? Now, there is a reason why the process here involves sending registered mail to people who live adjacent to this property. That is because their lives and concerns are immediately next to the property and they're affected more by it than the rest of the community is. And I would hope that the Waterfront Fund would take that into consideration also. You know, when Hurricane Sandy comes and all of the docks get ripped Up and come across the street, they wash into our property and we spend two days picking up the dock from the Galley Ho and putting it in the street so that it could be taken away by the Town. So these are, you know, issues that happen immediately right there. In terms of parking, please let me say that over the past few years there are more people in downtown New Suffolk. If it's going to be a restaurant, does that also mean a catering January 3, 2013 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 hall? What is the difference between those two? I don't know. Are we going to have weddings there? Are we going to have bands on the beach? I don't know. I think we need to have a plan here of what it's going to be. As it is now, we have a boat ramp there and trouble with parking now. On the first day of clamming season at five o'clock in the morning, there is all pick-up trucks that are coming in there. There is parking for the post office. Okay. When they have a 5K run, there is hundreds of people there with cars. They don't bike there. They come from Brooklyn and Queens. Boats are dropped off there from Sayville. So these are real issues that exist and I would love to support the Waterfront Funds ideas, but we need a real plan that really works and then let's do it. But asking for a special exception without a site plan, I think is really wrong. I think it's wrong. I support the subdivision. I support Robin's Island for the property, but I would ask that the Board deny the Special Exception until we have a site plan. Thank January 3, 2013 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 yOU o MS. HARKOFF: Diane Harkoff, Legends Restaurant, 435 First Street, New Suffolk. Besides parking, one of my biggest concerns is size of the septic system and how much water it will displace being above ground. We have all had to sandbag three times in the past eight weeks. And flooding is a big concern for us. Another concern is also the cost for building this and the flood insurance, the equipment. What happens it is not supporting the New Suffolk if height and length of this septic system would be? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not information that we have. MS. HARKOFF: I just feel and I heard at one time that anything you put above ground displaces more water and pushes it Waterfront Fund? Then does that require more fundraising? I know probably most people, I am told, are opposed to this, but I would like to see the taxes raised to support this project rather than continued fundraising. And does anyone know what the January 3, 2013 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 towards the buildings on Front Street. I also would be concerned about the cost of landscaping on this property considering how frequently it floods. And I think that is it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to address the Board? MR. SKALLY: Hi, yes. Thomas Skally, 270 Third Street. I am only in the neighborhood for a short time. I think the parking might be able to help on one of the side streets. You should be able -- if Southold could allow that, it would allow more parking on the street. Maybe that is not part of the approval with this. And with Legends, I think if they had a boat tender service that would take people you know, back and forth to their boats, it would increase the revenue for the Town and help Legends and help Summer Girl. It would help Galley Ho. It would help everybody. I think this is something that creates jobs and keeps the taxes iow, and I think based on that and itself -- like the gentleman January 3, 2013 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 was saying with the septic and the drainage, I think the engineer might be able to come up with that or maybe a different type of septic system that are more common in areas of Vermont. They would probably not raise the property as high. So maybe he might be able to shed some light on it. Like everybody says, when you're down at the beach or you're coming down there -- and yeah, people do walk and do ride their bicycles. In the winter time it's a sleep community. In the summer time, that's part of what New Suffolk is about on Long Island. There is a North Fork and a South Fork. That is where people come. They want to have a good time. Without these things it would make it boring out there. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Please come forward and state your name and spell it for the record. MR. ROUSSAN: Hi, Stephan Roussan, 415 Third Street, New Suffolk. R-O-U-S-S-A-N. I just wanted to say a few things. The concerns raised today are all perfectly January 3, 2013 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 appropriate and legitimate for the circumstances. Everyone has questions that they would love to have answered as quickly as possible. Certainly you can't have too much clarity and you know, I am certainly very sympathetic to the immediately adjacent to because they're the most impacted. At the same time, sort of remind everyone that properties that are the waterfront, immediately I just want to in a process like this, which is done entirely on a volunteer basis by members of the community who are giving up their selves and time and sacrificing a great deal for this, it takes time and you don't necessarily have the clarity and answers that you want to say, as if it were a business entity is well funded, corporate entity or that is coming in and that with all the answers ahead of time. I think we all have to allow for a fluid process. You know, especially considering what their fundraising concerns are. You know, a year ago, this plan wasn't really on the radar. And then you know, you work the channels and you develop the January 3, 2013 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 relationship and something happens and you get a break. The same thing with the application for the grant from the State. These are fantastic things that allow the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund to really secure it's own future and to have it's own stake. To know that there is a long term prospect by this without being put in debt and worry about immediately selling it off. So it is fluid. It is organic. It's very frustrating but I think it's important to recognize how hard these guys are working and the fact that these guys are doing it -- it's unfunded and funded by the people who are supporting it and still managing to really pull off what is a really unbelievable accomplishment. And when you contrast that with what might have happened there, if it had not been stepped in or garnered their support and not developed the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund, the future of that property, what it might have been and the impact of what it would have on all of us, especially for the people, you know, immediately across the street. I don't January 3, 2013 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 think it's -- it's just a remarkable difference to be in the position that we're in now versus what it might have been. So I want to commend the Waterfront Fund for that, and just amazed on how many people are working so hard on volunteer basis to make that happen. So I would like to have those answers too. Parking is a big issue for me too. And some of the uses that are being proposed are not necessarily the ones that I put my dot next to at the highest of the list. I do remember the restaurant option. It wasn't what I was going for myself, but I remember the restaurant option being extremely popular and one of the most requested uses for the property. It was not just park and open space. A lot of people, you know, were saying, it's open space now. It's boring. We want some life and some activity down there. I heard much more about the days of Galley Ho and having a burger down there. You might have to go back to the record and see what the voting results actually were, but I am pretty sure that the restaurant was at the top of the January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 69 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 list, at least the top three. So I just think that we have to be a little patient and give these guys a pat on the back too. To continue pressing. To continue asking. To continue wanting clarity and wanting it to come together, but I think we have to give these guys a little bit of a break too. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. MS. DINGLE: Susan Dingle, and I live at 7400 New Suffolk Road. Just off of Elizabeth Street, across the street from the school. And my parents bought the house in 1967 and were involved in the early days of founding the New Suffolk Civic Association. So we have always been involved and always loved going down to the Galley Ho, whether it be lunch time or last at night or whatever. It was always fun, but times have changed. As I am sitting here, I of course, support the work of the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund in really rescuing this land for future use. I totally acknowledge all their work often. I was very moved when I heard George Maul January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 speak of his concerns, as someone who lives on First Street. Times have changed. Never before, I don't ever remember the Fire Department coming through to evacuate New Suffolk because of flooding and the danger that was presented during Hurricane Sandy, and I just wondered have we fully taken into account the possibilities that are now present that didn't exist before. The flooding was kind of a theoretical. It could be a flood zone. It wasn't actually a flood zone. There was never any previous experience of a dock being washed up as George has described. Of course we all have that dream of having that hot dog at the Galley Ho and sitting on the picnic bench and all of that, but I just really think that we need to consider the fragility of the environment to really, really consider that the Eco system of New Suffolk is indeed fragile. The overburdening of our community because of the popularity is something that I think we really need to take into account. And I just really wanted to speak at, because I think in our January 3, 2013 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 enthusiasm, and our love for our community, that we may want to rush ahead and do wonderful things, but I think that it's important to take time and really consider those who really is you. the implications of what really appears be a very changing climate that has affected our delicate community. And so I just wanted to express that in support of are currently impacted that that a flooding zone, and so I thank to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're welcome. just want to make a comment at this point. Many of the concerns that you have raised, all of them carefully thought through and are certainly appreciated by this Board, are beyond the purview of what is before us. It is all a process. In order for you to proceed with the site plan review phase, where you will actually have to look at drainage, septic, placement of the restaurant whatever scale it turns out are things that happens at We too are concerned with an opportunity the proper structure, to be. Those another phase. life safety and January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 72 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 parking and we heard your concerns in what you're trying to do to address them. We have also heard from the Board and also from the members of the audience that the vagueness at this point, where you're able to pinpoint where that restaurant will be, relative to environmental impact, parking impact and so on, is somewhat of an issue. This Board -- I actually think I would like to poll the Board in order how to proceed. We don't have to close the hearing today. We can close it at our special meeting in two weeks. Giving everyone an opportunity to sit through what they heard and provide whatever written, not verbal, but written additional comments they would like to make to this Board. We can close this hearing at that time. That is for the application on the area variance. With regard to the Special Exception request for the Waterfront, that can be handled a couple of ways, and I am going to poll the Board in a moment. We can also do the same, close it at the Special Meeting or we can adjourn it to an open date, which means that you can January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 73 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 come back without any additional costs. So that you have more specifics and we can be more informed on precisely what it is that you're asking us to grant. So if you would like to comment on that, fine, but the Board has some options on how to proceed. We can also close all of these hearings right now, subject to any kind of comments you want to make before that happens. MS. WICKHAM: I don't have a problem with the concept of adjourning it and keeping the hearing open for another two weeks. I think that if that helps the Board and gets our hearing done today as people digest their comments, that is fine. What I do want to say that we're presented with a wonderful opportunity here to move forward with Robin's Island Holdings, but in order to do that, we have to know what is going to happen to the rest of the property, and without all of these applications adjudicated, we're really not in a position to do that. I don't know what will happen. They have presented us with a wonderful opportunity to move forward. No matter how January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 great of a plan that you present, some people may have a problem with it. I think all of the concerns here today can be addressed, and if there are specifics that need to be addressed when it comes to the actual construction of the restaurant and the approvals of the restaurant, that is all going to have to come out with at the appropriate time. that the Special Exception all of those site plans to whether a restaurant, which has for many, many years, can exist a special exception. So I would you not to adjourn that hearing than the two week process, if that possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Whoever best person qualified to answer this, a financial terms, Waterfront moving forward with the plans, how, in your opinion, essential is it to have a and be dealt I don't think needs to have determine been here again with like to ask anymore is is the from determination on the restaurant special exception, would a determination on the area variances, would that allow you to January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 transfer properties get that cash, plans, is that a possibility? to Robin's Holdings, and proceed with additional restaurant, then we don't have 6oth. MEMBER HORNING: May I ask a question? MS. WICKHAM: Sure. MEMBER HORNING: Relating to the New York State easement and the Nature Preserve easement, it has been mentioned that both of those easements require a certain amount of parking, and nobody mentioned how much or whatever. My question would be, those easements, do they have any effect on the total lot reserve -- MS. WICKHAM: No. MEMBER HORNING: The square footage required -- MS. WICKHAM: No. They do not impact density, if that is what your question is. MEMBER DINIZIO: What we want to know, MS. WICKHAM: They're all tied together. Because if you have a ability to have a restaurant and a marina together on less than a sufficient area but you don't have a special exception to reinstate the January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you have a marina and you have a restaurant and then you have a park use and then you have easements, with all of that total, do you somehow exceed the amount that you would need to provide for parking? See the problem that I see? The hamburger at the that myself, but wasn't there. You didn't -- MS. WICKHAM: We're not provide parking for Legend's MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree MS. WICKHAM: everything as we mentioned to dream is to have a Galley Ho and I have done when I did that, Legends -- we have can as accommodate all obligated to with you done Lauren Grant those uses. 100%. things that There is a that any more. There are took the place of Galley Ho. restaurant there that services area that was once serviced by the MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with you 100%. MS. WICKHAM: But we will continue to do so. MEMBER DINIZIO: We're looking at congestion. We're looking at planning. You know, what existed when this restaurant existed, doesn't exist January 3, 2013 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 Galley Ho. Now, you're asking to do another restaurant in that area. MS. WICKHAM: It has always existed and I don't think there is another restaurant in town which has it's own business, its own clientele. I don't think that is a reason on what can happen on this particular piece of property. MEMBER DINIZIO: Only that you're talking about land use. You once had a restaurant there. You can only have a restaurant there if you come before this Board and ask for permission. Now, we're looking at someone saying, if you raise the land, you're going to flood my property -- MS. WICKHAM: Let me just address that. Anything that happens with respect to the sanitary system County Health Department. conceptual site plan that you, there are some system will have to will be approved by Suffolk And in fact, the was presented to areas that the sanitary be built up. That is all going to be in accordance with Suffolk County Health Department. MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. Fine. We're January 3, 2013 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 having a hearing on the restaurant, I think it's at least appropriate or a person coming into this town to see what that is going to look like on a map -- MS. WICKHAM: That is what the site plan is for. MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree. Where is it? MS. WICKHAM: We have given you a conceptual site plan. The actual site plan, with the architectural review and all those things will have to happen at the site plan stage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just request something. I know that you know this. This Board and we have members on here who have been on and off for over 35 years, the Board does not, has not, approved uses based on a concept. They are always site specific. The code gives us some latitude -- but what I would actually like to do is recess for ten minutes because I want to make sure that we get this right and see what our legal authority is. And I would like to confer and go into Executive Session with the Town Attorney January 3, 2013 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 and the Board, and it shouldn't take long, ten or fifteen minutes. I apologize to the other applicants that need to be heard. We will get to you as soon as we can, but this is a complicated issue. It's a double application and it's important, and we know that. We want to get it right. MS. WICKHAM: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am going to make a motion to go into Executive Session. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (Whereupon, the meeting entered Executive Session.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- make a motion to close the hearing on the area variances for the lot line change. We don't feel, unless somebody in the audience wants to object to this, that there is any additional testimony that is necessary for January 3, 2013 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 any additional comments that we need. So that is that. With regard to the Special Exception permit application for the restaurant. We're going to adjourn that to the February meeting in order to accomplish the following. We're going to request that you submit to the Board a specific site plan. It can be exactly the one that is in front of us now. Right, "as built", exactly where it is. We would need to have the and we on this septic plan located on this survey would need to have parking located plan. We will then be in a position to evaluate approval of something specific. We're aware that your plans will change. We know that you will go to many site plan approval, but this will allow us to do something that the Board has jurisdiction over, which is to grant the use of a restaurant on the parcel as determined with regard to the lot line change. The restaurant would have been distinguished because it has not been a continuos use. We then would be in a position because we will have an "as built" plan with additional January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information to grant or deny based on something specific. If you need more time than February, we will adjourn from February to March. We're hopeful that given your timeframe you will be able to get this done within that time. If you need to come back to us, you will just come back to us with amended plans. You know, once you go through site plan approval, the Planning Board. The Planning Board, if the plans change, you just come back before the Board with those plans and we can proceed from there. That will allow us to not hold you up and to look at these things and all the applications simultaneously. Do you have any questions? MR. SKALLY: I have one question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name. MR. SKALLY: Thomas Skally. In the beginning of this meeting, it was told that there were time constraints as far as getting the low interest loan. What timeframe is that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have -- MR. SKALLY: From what they were saying January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 82 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for their financing -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Their financing? MR. SKALLY: Yes. If this is approved what the are, the Board They have 62 closing of the in a timely manner, that money would be available to the community? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Here is Board's legal obligations will make a determination. days from the date of the hearing to make a determination in writing. We more often than not make a determination within two weeks from today. We have a special meeting two weeks after the regular meeting, and we have draft decisions written. We do our very best to get it done then. It's not always possible. It depends on how complicated. If it's not possible to be done, it will be done one month from now at the next regular meeting. We will deliberate and then do a draft. We're talking now about the lot line change. regard to the special exception, if you have the information you need for the February hearing, we may have questions on it. There may be some additional comments With January 3, 2013 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 that some of you would like to make. It won't be as nearly long of a hearing as it today, and then we can adjudicate in the same way. We can even have a draft prepared for that very same day of the hearing and make a decision the same date. It depends on how fast you all act to get us that information. I can't answer your question as to the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund. Maybe Barbara can. So would you like to answer it publicly or privately? MS. SCHNITZLER: We can do it privately. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Any other Board? Anything from the questions or comments from the (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: audience? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no further questions or comments, I am going to make a motion to close Application #6616 and reserving decision MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CHAIRPERSON for a later date. Second. WEISMAN: Ail in favor? January 3, 2013 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 MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. That was for the lot line change. Now, I am going to make a motion adjourn application #6617, request for Special Exception use brought by New Suffolk Waterfront and adjourn it to the regular meeting, which is on 7th at 10:00 a.m. And you're adjournment is based upon the February February that the receipt septic well of "as built" site plan showing and elevations for the septic, as as parking. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Gerry. Ail in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. to the clear January 3, 2013 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 #6618 PETER AND DIANE MOLLICA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Peter and Diane Mollica, #6618. Request for variance from Article III Code Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's December 3, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for an accessory in-ground swimming at: 1) accessory in-ground swimming pool is proposed in a location other than the code required rear yard, located at: 50 Schooner Drive, corner Anchor Lane, in Southold. MS. MOLLICA: Hi. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hi. MS. MOLLICA: I am Diane Mollica. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Just so you're aware, all the Board members have been out to visit your property. MS. MOLLICA: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To see what the neighborhood looks like. To see the proposed location exactly. January 3, 2013 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 MS. MOLLICA: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there something that you would like to tell us? The proposed pool is along the side of the house with a 22 side yard setback and 11 feet to the road, and a proposed fence. MS. MOLLICA: It's really actually very simple. I don't have a backyard. I live on the corner. So if everybody visited, you will know that I have two side yards and a front yard. My backyard is very narrow and I have several cesspools back there as well. So there is no ideal place for it. The best place would be on the side of the house where I am proposing. There is ample space. I have moved the garage door, so I can take out that driveway and put the proposed pool there. The only thing that I would like to say in reference to the sign, I had two signs posted. We were away from the holiday and we had a snow storm and several different storms, and I could not put back the sign. I brought you evidence so you can see that I tried and being that it was a holiday. I got really upset when January 3, 2013 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 gentleman came today and I didn't have my sign, but I would suggest that they laminate the sign, because I didn't -- I tried to put saran wrap on it and nothing worked. At one time, it was completely posted for the entire length. So if you have any questions for me, I think it's kind of clear. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How high is the fence? MS. MOLLICA: I don't have a fence. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The fence around the pool? MS. MOLLICA: I have to put a fence around the pool. I have not gone into that yet because I have not researched it. I understand that there is a certain height that you need for the pool. So that was my understanding that I would do whatever is required, and I have not gotten that far. I am taking it one step at a time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You will be required by code to put up a minimum four foot fence, since you're in the front yard. MS. MOLLICA: That's fine. January 3, 2013 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You might want to consider installing some evergreen screening -- MS. MOLLICA: Absolutely. I would want that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am not sure how your neighbors -- MS. MOLLICA: I looked into that if I put the hedge before or after the fence, at four feet and because of the distance from my house, I could still see the view. So I will just have to do what I have to do and I will keep it at four feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: Any reason why you can't move it closer to your house? MS. MOLLICA: Move the pool closer to the house? Well, I have a deck and the deck has always been there. It's a concrete deck, and it's ten feet away from that. If I put it any closer, you will walk off the deck and into the pool. So I would have to take away that deck that is already part of my house. And I enjoy the deck, and I am January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to use it as part of the outdoor area. MEMBER DINIZIO: What about your cesspools? MS. MOLLICA: The cesspools are in the back of the house. MEMBER DINIZIO: You live on a peninsula; right? Your cesspools are in the back -- MS. MOLLICA: The back of the house which is Anchor Lane. MEMBER DINIZIO: So I see a drain there and a well, there is cesspools in that area? MS. MOLLICA: Yes. It's in the back of the house. So if you came in the front door of my house and just go straight through, it's in the back of the house. MEMBER DINIZIO: The driveway is on the side of your house? MS. MOLLICA: I'm sorry if this is confusing. The old driveway is on the side of the house. That is where I am proposing to put the pool. The new driveway -- MEMBER DINIZIO: That is on the front? January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOLLICA: The front of the house. I moved that. MEMBER DINIZIO: That is what you consider the front of your house? MS. MOLLICA: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: If I walk front door and straight into your that is where your cesspools are? MS. MOLLICA: Exactly. MEMBER DINIZIO: That wouldn't be the drywell for your pool? MS. MOLLICA: No, because I the drywell in a different area. through your house, to MEMBER DINIZIO: So there are no plans recover that? MS. MOLLICA: No, I didn't like that. MEMBER DINIZIO: And the deck, concrete pad, it has been -- MS. MOLLICA: I don't know. The previous owner put it there. When I went to the Town to get my survey, it was already on the survey. So I didn't change -- I took down a glass enclosure, which was the sun room and kept the concrete slab, so I could just make an outdoor patio. the would put January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. And the driveway where the pool is going, that is all going to be removed and plant grass? MS. MOLLICA: Yes, I will plant grass and I will do a walk way and put a chair or something like that. MEMBER DINIZIO: How much decking are you going to have around the pool? MS. MOLLICA: I guess about ten feet, but not all the way around because I won't have the room to go all the way around. Probably three feet in the area where I don't have space. I do have space, I will do ten feet. MEMBER DINIZIO: So that will be ten feet between Schooner Drive? MS. MOLLICA: Yes. Schooner Drive side and the street. So all along the street. Do you have a survey? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. How do we treat the three feet around the pool and should that be subject to the variance? That's eleven feet from the pool. MS. MOLLICA: I'm sorry? MEMBER DINIZIO: It's eleven feet from January 3, 2013 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 the property line to the pool, and you want to go three feet on that side just so you can walk around? the or would that be MS. MOLLICA: to put blue stone. MS. MOLLICA: So when you step out of pool you don't step onto the grass. MEMBER DINIZIO: Would that be cement wood? No, I MEMBER DINIZIO: just lay that on the MS. MOLLICA: Yes. it properly installed. MEMBER DINIZIO: So was actually going Put blue stone and ground? Well, I would have there wouldn't be in between it. MEMBER DINIZIO: Good luck with that stone. MS. MOLLICA: It's a fortune. MEMBER DINIZIO: I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I Okay. I think that is Gerry? really don't have all blue cement underneath it? MS. MOLLICA: Something there just so the blue stone won't move. Nothing won't grow January 3, 2013 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 anything. She doesn't have any other place to put it. MS. MOLLICA: Thank you. MEMBER HORNING: How many residences are up there on that Schooner Drive? MS. MOLLICA: There are two other houses than mine. MEMBER HORNING: Just two? MS. MOLLICA: Just two. That is a dead-end street. There is three, past my house there is two, but across there is one. So that's MEMBER HORNING: three. So you have approximately driving their three different neighbors vehicles in and out what turns out to be a dead-end. MS. MOLLICA: I am not sure if this matters to you, but those people don't live there. That is their second homes. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. They could live there? MS. MOLLICA: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anybody else? Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further questions, close this hearing a later date. I will make a motion to and reserve decision to 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 #6614 BETTY HERMANN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Betty Hermann, #6614. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III, Section 280-13B(13) . The applicant owner requesting authorization to an accessory apartment in an is the establish accessory January 3, 2013 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 structure, located at: 305 North Bayview Road, Extension Southold, New York. MR. LEONARD: Good afternoon. Robert Leonard, L-E-O-N-A-R-D. Agent for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. We have just received -- a number of us went out and did a site inspection of the property for the proposed accessory. We got a letter of support from the neighbor. Everyone has a copy of that. Now, we just found out from the Building Inspector that the livable floor area is 600 square feet. That's fine. The code requires -- permits rather a maximum of 750. proposed attached deck, square feet, that now, livable space but it's structure -- MR. LEONARD: Okay. However, with the it's like 300 because it's not the size of the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 900 square feet. That would two things. Either reducing it, making it of the wood deck, It's now becoming require one or it, removing smaller. Using pavers instead because then that doesn't January 3, 2013 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 count, or asking for an area variance. Those are the options. We just found this out. MR. LEONARD: So the deck would be considered livable area? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: the square footage of the structure. Not apartment. permits a maximum of 750 on the size of your lot. MR. LEONARD: So it's 750 total? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. MR. LEONARD: With the deck? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, it's No it's not. It's overall Structure code square feet, based the 900 . MR. LEONARD: 150 feet has deck? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Or if put it at grade, not a wooden deck, doesn't count at all. MR. LEONARD: Part of the reason for the deck is the elevation change. It's going to be two steps up into the to come off you then it apartment, and we really didn't want to have the steps right on the building. I am not totally against scaling down the deck. January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 97 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 With that variance, can we handle that through this Board? What would be necessary for an area variance? Do we have to start over again? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, we do have the right to grant a small area variance as part of a Special Exception permit application. We have done it once before. MR. LEONARD: Originally my plans were to square the deck with a window in the front. That was another set of plans. I don't know if that would shorten it up 150 square feet exactly, but we squared up the deck with the building really just for architectural and aesthetics. I would prefer to keep it that way, if we could arrange it that way, but I don't want to prolong my building permit's and everything else. Some of you know me, I am a seasonal guy and I kind of wanted to get this done in my off season. So if necessary, I will cut the deck down if we can do something here today. I would like to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: While the Board I guess the Board can provide can, January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ~7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 alternative relief to it's projected size, and say you can have a maximum of "X". And then you can design how you want to have it. You can cut it back this way. We don't need to be designing it for you but we can provide an alternative to the proposed 30X10. MR. LEONARD: I have no problems scaling it down to whatever you all decide. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Another way to do it would be to have it at grade and then step down. That is entirely up to you. Patios don't count. MR. LEONARD: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It doesn't count as square footage. You can put an upper decking and lower patio. That is entirely up to you. That's just some information for you. MR. LEONARD: As far as I am concerned, if it's an issue then the deck gets much smaller to conform to the square footage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, questions? January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 99 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 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a very unique application and I only began to realize the uniqueness of it when I came out to see you. This particular building is well set back to the rear of the property and you have no access to it. For fire and emergency purposes, you need to put a driveway in. MR. LEONARD: Absolutely. We actually got it painted out in the lawn and after your departure, I was working on it when -- MEMBER HORNING: I saw it. MR. LEONARD: Of course it's going to be nonpermeable. We want to do a blend. We're not sure if we're going to go with -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You mean permeable, not nonpermeable? MR. LEONARD: Correct. Sorry, yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It has to be more than tire tracks. MR. LEONARD: Which is what we're looking at now. The width of the gates that go into the backyard to go into a parking area back there. We also want to have a driveway. We also don't want to go too far January 3, 2013 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 not knowing what we can and can't do without it. If I can -- if we can't make an accessory apartment, it is still an accessory building, and we're still going to put the driveway in to get back there. Just use it for other purposes. The driveway is a concern for us also and we plan on putting it in. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I do not have from you is a parking plan to put the driveway in. MR. LEONARD: Okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we need to have a parking plan for -- I want to say at least two cars. One car for the house and one two cars -- MR. LEONARD: A parking the house or just for the plan also for accessory place? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You just need to show three parking spaces on the property. MR. LEONARD: Well, I have a two-car driveway coming into the home. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not issue. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The car is it the January 3, 2013 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 eventually building; correct? parking -- MR. LEONARD: have to have a of the house? MEMBER going to go out through So where is the the Are you saying that we driveway going into the GOEHRINGER: For fire and back emergency purposes, there is no way for any emergency vehicle to get to that building in the back, without a driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to have access because life safety issues. MR. LEONARD: Okay. We're not talking about a 20 foot wide -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just a normal driveway. MEMBER HORNING: Plus you have to show us where the parking would be for the accessory apartment. MR. LEONARD: Okay. You need a survey plan or a hand sketch is good enough? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can write it right on here. January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 102 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: You can scale it right here. MR. LEONARD: Anything else that we need? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, let's just go over a couple of facts that address the actual proposal. The proposal is for your grandson? MR. LEONARD: Correct, my son. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have an affidavit indicating that that is the case. I am just putting this into the public record that drivers license and phone bills have been submitted for proof of occupancy. And that the owner will reside in the dwelling, Ms. Hermann. And pretty much meets the accessory apartment requirements. I would like to commend you as doing this as a proposal and not after the fact. I think that this is the first accessory apartment that is not an "as built" apartment that has come into us. It's kind of nice for the Board that somebody is thinking proactively that somebody wants to do this. January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 103 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 of of Ken, do you have any questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now, I didn't see driveway. Is it on the Cedar Lane side the house? MR. LEONARD: Yes, it's on that side the house. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you are going to give me this plan back as soon as possible showing the driveway to the building in the rear. can. MR. LEONARD: Very good. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As quickly as you MR. LEONARD: I will have it tomorrow, maybe even this afternoon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I am going to make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision, subject to receipt of notations on the existing survey of the proposed driveway, from the street to the January 3, 2013 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 2B 24 25 proposed accessory apartment. The parking for three vehicles on the subject property and a scaled down deck. As long as you're doing that, you might as well propose to us what you think the minimum that is feasible -- MR. LEONARD: Very good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And then we will decide whether that is agreeable or whether we want it smaller or what. Since you're doing this anyway, we might as well give you an opportunity to tell us what you think is feasible. Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is a 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 #6619 - MICHAEL J. HIRSCHHORN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next January 3, 2013 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 application before the Board is for Michael J. Hirschhorn, ~6619. Request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-122A and the Building Inspector's December 4, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling at: 1) a nonconforming building containing a conforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered or moved, provided such action does not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance. Pursuant to the interpretation of Walz (5039) such alterations will thus constitute an increase in the degree of nonconformance: (A) less than the minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, (b) less than the minimum combined side yard setbacks of 25 feet, located at: 280 Sound Avenue, adjacent to Long Island Sound, ?econic. MR. LAIRD: James Laird, Suffolk Environmental for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want the record to reflect that we have just January 3, 2013 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 recently received the recommendations the LWRP coordinator your proposed action MR. LAIRD: The and indicating is exempt. subject property from that very unsubstantial addition. Because we're altering the roof structure around the addition, it triggered a variance. The only reason is that it needs a variance is because of three feet of roof on the other side. The roof will be reconstructed and it will add a different look. It will yield more ceiling living area directly underneath the addition. The ceiling will not be changed throughout the rest of the is very narrow, very long. It's only 50 feet wide and the existing house is preexisting nonconforming and it's 28.6 feet wide. That leaves a total side yard of -- nonconforming side yard. The second floor addition is why we're here. The applicant has requested a variance because in the installation of a variance of the addition, the roof surrounding the addition will be altered. The addition itself is conforming and it conforms to the setback and is a January 3, 2013 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 house. It will only be changed directly underneath the addition. It is -- it won't damage the character of the neighborhood because frankly it is an aesthetic upgrade to the area. That's the jist of it. It's not particularly huge variance. It's a marginal variance at most. And almost all of the encouraging will be into the side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Ken, would you like to ask some questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. First looking at your variance reasons, if you want to get that sheet out. I understand it's a new second story, to be admissible in the side yard setbacks, but this area -- the side yard will be temporary in nature. Are you speaking to the construction of the unit? MR. LAIRD: Initially the plan was to keep the roof grade and now it is to raise the roof grade marginally. So all the construction will be taken out when we're finished with construction except for the two feet of new roof. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are you talking to January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the contractors MR. LAIRD: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: addition to the dwelling area variance because of equipment? Okay. Any lawful will require an the small side yards. Well, could you construct that second-story without those encouragements into the side yard? MR. LAIRD: Any require roof renovation. particular new house and to make the living space more habitable, the roof by two feet by a couple for higher ceilings. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: addition to that would It's not a because they want under the addition has to be raised of feet to allow So let's go with that. So the purpose is to increase the ceiling height of the first floor in that area? MR. LAIRD: Yes. And the railings that you see are of MEMBER SCHNEIDER: those railings? is What is the height MR. LAIRD: The height of the railings two feet. It's really for decoration. January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It's just to hide the roofing. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You said the alleged difficulty has been self-created. You answered, no. MR. LAIRD: Because the applicant purchased this house a couple of years ago and is what -- it was preexisting nonconforming. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay, but what he wants to do, his hardship is self-created because he wants to raise his roof? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental. I just want to make a couple of things clear. We're talking about altering a roof or ceiling height. We're talking simply within the footprint of the second floor. Not the entire house. The remaining roof structure stays the same. We're not pulling the entire roof off this house. What we're doing is putting a second-story on the water side of the house that is 600 square feet of the house. There would always be some modification to that roof, even though the second floor is conforming with respect to side yard, January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 110 1 2 B 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because the first floor has to support the second. Having said that, the applicant has also said, since I am putting the second floor on and I have to take this roof off, why not simply make the first floor ceiling height be ten feet instead of eight feet, just under where I am putting the addition. Whether it's eight feet or ten feet, I am of roof within that helps. MEMBER question was it still modifying that section the required side yard, if SCHNEIDER: That helps. The self-created, my opinion it Which does not of it. think if I had an I would still Yes. Whether it be a few is self-created. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: preclude the granting MR. ANDERSON: I eight feet ceiling height, before this Board? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER SCHNEIDER: inches or whatever. be MR. ANDERSON: Two feet. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Your plans, we need to have some type of indication of what is January 3, 2013 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 what. Like a sheet number, who's it drawn by and dated. So when we write a decision, we reference a drawing and plans and surveys that are specific to our decision making. MR. LAIRD: I just supplied the plans on a very hasty notice because of some confusion. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The original application did not have an elevation showing the pertinent -- let me see, is that the north view? Yes, north view. To show what is going on. But anyway, you know like the normal drawings. What the scale is. Who it was drawn by. The date and sheet number. You know the deal. MR. LAIRD: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That's all I have to say cellar, does it cellar? MR. right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: The stairway to the foundation and how big it cover the whole building, the LAIRD: Yes. the is, January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is it walkable stairs and what foot ceiling MEMBER HORNING: And height? You walk down the do you have, about a seven down there? MR. LAIRD: Yep. MEMBER HORNING: Are you aware of any variances granted to neighboring properties in that neighborhood, such as right next door? They have new construction going on there, that would be just to the east. Did you do any research in the neighborhood as to what variances were granted? For side yard setbacks for example? MR. LAIRD: I didn't research variances granted. I did research the neighborhood and I did notice the new construction of the houses and stuff like that and this would be in keeping with the neighborhood. MEMBER HORNING: If you gave us some information regarding that, you would be surprised to find that there had been variances granted for your reasons and that would benefit your application to submit that type of information. That would be addressing the character of the January 3, 2013 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 neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don~t have any particular questions regarding this plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Since there is no one else in the audience, unless you want to say something else, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. We would like about two weeks to provide the additional information regarding other variances and also to provide a title block. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. I am going to make a motion to close subject to receipt of exactly that, a set of dated architectural plans, the usual stuff and perhaps other information regarding side yard variances in that neighborhood. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. January 3, 2013 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 MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) (Whereupon, the January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting concluded.) January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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. Signatu~_ ~essica--DiLallo Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter PO Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 Date: January 15, 2013