Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/07/2013 Hearing1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall Southold, New York February 7, 2013 10:12 A.M. X X RECEIVED FEB $ ?.013 BOARD OF APPEALS Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN Chairperson/Member JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member GEORGE HORNING - Member VICKI TOTH Secretary JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member (Excused) Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter P.O. Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 (631)-338-1409 February 7, 2013 Meeting 2 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 Hearing: INDEX OF HEARINGS New Suffolk Waterfront Fund, Inc. #6617 Robert Hoey, #6624 Shamgar Capital, LLC (Daniel Buttafuoco), #6620 MMMM Beer, LLC, #6621 Peter and Teresa Benotti, #6623 Breezy Shores Community, Inc. {Naomi Mullman), #6622 Page: 3-39 39-56 56-58 58-82 82-89 89-113 February 7, 2013 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 %6617 - NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND, INC. through the Special Exception criteria that you're considering today, and then I am sure there will be other comments and questions that we would want to spend our time on. I wanted to quickly recite the purpose of the MII Zone to provide a Suffolk. Is there to open with like to? MS. Wickham. Waterfront Mattituck. someone here that would like comments? Gall, would you WICKHAM: Yeah. My name is Gail I represent New Suffolk Fund, 13015 Main Road, I just want to briefly go CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our first application before the Board is for New Suffolk Waterfront Fund, Inc. That is #6617. This was adjourned from January 3, 2013. Request for Special Exception per Article XIII Section 280-55(B) 1 to operate a restaurant in a Marine II District, located at: 650 First Street, corner of Jackson Street, Main Street, adjacent to Cutchogue Harbor in New February 7, 2013 Meeting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 waterfront location water dependent and This Special Exception for a usually is appropriate under you're required under the for a number of reasons. store a long running use for a wide range of water related uses. restaurant the standards code to consider First, it will of the property but on a much smaller scale, more keeping with the character of the community. The Galley Ho had 95 seats and 24 slips approximately, and that is being scaled down almost by 30 percent. It is more realistic from an economic viability perspective to -- just addressing the fact, that our original application was a slightly larger marina and slightly smaller restaurant. We have come back to you with a proposed approximate, 66 seats, 15 slips because it is more realistic from an economic viability pinpoint. It is essential in order to keep this property sustained, to have a viable economic use. The restaurant seating is more productive then a slip rental. The other reason that this is appropriate for a Special Exception February 7, 2013 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 is, it establishes a waterfront venue or a cafe. And there aren't even with all our shorelines and all our restaurants, there aren't really a huge number of waterfront restaurants available in the North Fork area. So we think it would be excellent for the community and the Town as a whole to have this waterfront dining opportunity. We don't restaurant will community. It think that the additional be excessive to the is a destination community. Both restaurants existed side by side for many years and this is going to be a much smaller and more limited hours of operation. It's not going to be sort of an all night honky-tonk. It will be an excellent accompaniment to the many events that the Waterfront Fund sponsors. They have a chowder fest, fairs, and all kinds Wednesday night races would just be a nice art shows, craft -- the impromptu and beach going. It accessory to people who come to those events and want to stay and have a snack or a bite to eat, or perhaps a drink. We all know at the end of February 7, 2013 Meeting 6 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 the day everyone is going to go over to Legend's anyway because that is what they do now. So don't think that it's going to be excessive for the usage and the community. Another important factor, it will produce an actual parking lot, where it faces and many, many more spaces that have been available in this impromptu gravel, random area. It will also provide room to expand that parking shall that become necessary or advisable. One other very important factor is that this will upgrade the sanitary system to something that will be acceptable to Health Department standards. It will protect Peconic Bay and it will protect the groundwater. The Waterfront Fund does now have approval from the Health Department for an upgraded septic system. It's a very big crypt type system. They don't really want to build because it would interfere with this system and what not. So the resulting scale down restaurant concept will enable them to contour the land so that with a sanitary system they can just February 7, 2013 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 put park like amenities and make it attractive and improve and maintain that vista that is all important to the community and the Town, of looking towards the bay. So just to reiterate the general items that you have to consider on a Special Exception, you have to consider is this thing, land use patterns. The project will conform to that. You have to consider character. That will conform to this project. Also, the natural environment and beyond just upgrading the septic system and providing parking, it's going to preserve by creating this re-subdivision with Robin's Island Holdings. It's going to create a preserve of over one acre of prime bay front, plus the park area with a waterfront property, which will be a tremendous enhancement to the environment. However, without the ability to economically use this 2.4 acre property, that the Fund is going to maintain after the transfer to -- it will be a Peconic Land Trust nature. This tremendous plan can not happen. So it's all connected. February 7, 2013 Meeting 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The transfer, the connection, the park and the utilization of the property as a restaurant marina. It's all tied together. It's essential to the viability of the project, to the fundraising of the project, and we hope we will have your support on it. Most importantly, from the perspective of the Board's concerns, is that as a Special Exception, your Board will have continuing jurisdiction over this project. Further, the Planning Board will fine tune all the details when we get to the Site Plan and construction process. I have a few other things to say but they are more in the way of a general overview. We would like to remind the Board, and this is as just much for the record as it is for you, that this is the downtown area of New Suffolk, such as New Suffolk has a downtown. This is what business is supposed to be. This is the MII Zoning, which of course includes restaurant uses. And in fact, years ago, there was not only a marina and restaurant, they also had more intensive services, marine service February 7, 2013 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 facilities, post office and general store. The plan will allow the adjacent business properties orderly and reasonable use of their properties by improving the parking, improving access, drawing people to the area and giving them a destination. It's going to allow the adjacent residential properties orderly and reasonable use for the same reasons. And also, giving them a beautiful site near their homes that they will have access to and be able to use as community amenities. It will by it's nature, have a seasonal character. And we just think that there are probably questions that you want to get to, but those are the items that we would like you to consider in making this review. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, Nancy. Just so that we can have a sense of how many people are here. I would like to see how many of you are here in support of this application, would you raise your hands, please? And how many of you have some concerns about this application or February 7, 2013 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 opposition? Thank you. It gives us some idea of where we're going time wise. We have already addressed the change in the original and proposed 55 and 24, the restaurant and the 24 boat slips. That was a question that I had although none of that is concrete. As for this Board, the greater concern that we have is that it's less intense use that was historically on the property. You have listed possible future parcels on the survey along First Street. MS. WICKHAM: That is existing parking, for overflow. It's not something that we want to lay-out specifically when we ask for a site plan. We think the Planning Board is going to want to address that, and tell us how they want to see it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In your parking yield, you're not including those? MS. WICKHAM: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Relative to the two uses? MS. WICKHAM: That's correct. As I mentioned in my cover letter, the mass a February 7, 2013 Meeting 1t 1 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 that is proposed on the site in the main parking area, is sufficient under the code to meet the proposed uses on that site. Ail of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think for the benefit of the public, I would like to explain something without getting to technical. The Board is very aware that since we adjourned this hearing a month ago, we have received at least 25 letters. I may be off by a letter or two, and we just got one this morning. So that is going to be 26 letters, e-mails and so forth. Of the 25 that we have received, 23 were in support of the application and two had concerns and were in opposition. We do have a new letter, and the author is in the audience and may want to summarize for us. Of course the Board will read this, but certainly we're going to take additional comments from the audience. And I would like people -- we took a lot of testimony last time on both of these applications. So I would like for us to try and -- either add something new or reiterate something February 7, 2013 Meeting 12 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 that is essentially as essentially as possible for the sake of time, and not necessarily repeat things as people have said. So let's see if the Board has any questions at this point. And I would like to open it up to the audience as soon as I explain one of the things that I want the public to be aware of. Many of the concerns, understandably, as I am sure you are aware, has to do with environmental impact. We know that this is a private piece of land, which (In Audible) regularly. That has historically been the case and likely continues to be the case. And I think that a number of people have grave concerns about how the property is used relative to that flight. This Board asked for a survey, that is a little bit different from what we originally asked for. And the reason is, we are obligated with Special Exception permits to look at SEQRA. That stands for State Environmental Quality Review Act. And that looks very carefully usually with specialist, at adverse an environmental impacts -- potential February 7, 2013 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 adverse impacts on a property. There is an exemption for triggering SEQRA before this Board that says if a proposal is of new construction but is going to be rebuilt in-place and in-kind, then SEQRA will not be triggered and we can determine that to be a Type II action, meaning no further review by this Board is required. Had we not done that -- we don't know fully that your plans, and you said so, in the future are going to likely move the restaurant back farther away from the VE Zone, Flood Zone, and into a less intense flooding area. The second that that takes place before the Planning Board, SEQRA will be triggered. It will be thorough and complete, by law, reviewed of all the potential problems with septic, with drainage onsite, which you must comply with Chapter 236 of the Stormwater Drainage Code, the Town. There is a whole range of things. Traffic impact. Ail of those will be covered under SEQRA. Had this Board not done it this way, we would have been required to undertake SEQRA our self. That February 7, 2013 Meeting 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would have delayed this particular application by a month and it would have cost a good deal of money to hire a consultant. So I want you to be all aware of the fact that the law will require much more intense and further review where there will be numerous public hearings, where people will be able to address issues on septic, curve-cuts, ingress and egress, all parking and so on and so forth. So I just want you to be mindful of the fact that it only begins at the next phase. It is not concluded here today by any means. Having said that, let me see if there is anyone here on the Board at this point, who has questions. Ken, I will start with you? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no questions at this point. There has been so much material presented to us. I would like to hear some comments. So I will preserve my questioning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the rest of the Board feel that way? MEMBER HORNING: I have a couple of February 7, 2013 Meeting 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George has some questions. MS. WICKHAM: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. I didn't hear what Ken said. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no questions at this point. I would just like to reserve my questioning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Till after we hear comments. MEMBER HORNING: I have a technical question for the Board on bulkhead setbacks. How is that going to relate to the future of when they move the building and such? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If the building is moved to a nonconforming bulkhead setback, meaning less than 75 feet away from the existing bulkhead, closer to the road, then you will be back here for the -- or the applicant's would be back before our Board for an area variance, which would need a setback variance. If it's placed in a conforming area, which would be 75 feet from the bulkhead, then there are no new February 7, 2013 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 nonconformities that have been created and therefore, relief will not be necessary from the Board of Appeals. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it depends on how they work with their final Site Plan approval. Where you go with Planning Board and where you decide to place all this and parking and so on. MEMBER HORNING: Gail, would you tell us please, what the difference is now between -- you got a county approval for some proposed septic system and some sort of an artifical elevation to have built berms around also? MS. WICKHAM: Some time ago earlier in the project when this plan had not been developed, an application was made to the Health Department to reinstate the Galley Ho where it is, as it is on the whole piece of property. And there is a stamped Health Department map but it involves building a very large -- we call it a cliff. It's a big pile of dirt with cesspools in it between the Galley Ho and the road. And February 7, 2013 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 that would be ugly and horrible, and that plan was discarded in favor of these other plans, but it does illustrate the Health Department has reviewed the property and does understand that there are approvable aspects of the sanitary systems, and we're going to go right in, as soon as we get through these preliminary stages to ask for this type of system, which is a much more (In Audible) type of contours to happen in the area. It will go to how far back the building is and also those other things, but certainly whatever we do is going to require extensive Health Department review, and they already do have quite a file on it. MEMBER HORNING: So on the latest survey that you put in with the parking -- MS. WICKHAM: That is existing as we understand it. MEMBER HORNING: Right. You have location of possible subsurface sanitary possible location, and yet it's possible also that you have to move the building. MS. WICKHAM: Yes. February 7, 2013 Meeting 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEMBER HORNING: It doesn't show any of these contours, even where -- MS. WICKHAM: The map that was submitted originally to you by Barrett Bonacci & Van Weele, shows the flood zone lines. be an restaurant building now street, sanitary covers are lot. Mr. Fischetti inserted "possible," because he took surveyors map, which you didn't actually get down That particular map was intended to as-built and it reflects the and where either a in the parking the word, it from the have, and he there and crawl around and ensure that they were. He is relying on the surveyor's map. He did make sure that they were there, which you have on your file, and they are also repeated here on his map. That is existing. MEMBER HORNING: That is existing. Are they in the flood zone? MS. WICKHAM: You know -- UNKNOWN SPEAKER: They are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The whole property is a flood zone. MR. FISCHETTI: Joseph Fischetti February 7, 2013 Meeting 19 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 representing New Suffolk those are existing. approved. Those are Fund. George, They will never be existing cesspools even the location of this barn, which may get in the way of things. MS. WICKHAM: Yeah. If I can answer your question, and maybe at the same time respond to my -- I am literally skimming the letter from Ms. Harkoff. This project the ground. They have no bearing on anything. Once submissions are made to the Health Department, all sanitary systems have to meet current requirements. What we're showing you there is older systems that are in the ground, that I didn't even inspect. So I don't even know what they are. They're probably an old block or brick cesspool. So I really don't think that it really has a bearing on anything other than they're noncompliant and they're probably sitting in groundwater. MEMBER HORNING: So other than addressing the parking, everything else is in-flux, the location of the building, the location of the septic system and perhaps February 7, 2013 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 has a very long regulatory process ahead of us. We're at the very beginning of what we can do and types of uses that can be maintained. We have a tremendous amount of engineering. The DEC's and Trustees approval. Health Department approval. FEMA compliance, which will involve moving and raising the main restaurant building. The plan at this point is to leave the barn as it is and the other building as it is. There is also going to be inserted a New York State Parks review because of the conservation easement, and hopefully we can spare you another variance if we can get the building back enough from the bulkhead. So that is a possibility. So really the Site Plan construction phase is to zero in on where everything is going to be. This is what you're faced with today and just in terms of uses. Any of those uses that you do apply to Special Exception still have to sit within the framework of all these other regulatory criteria. And we think that because of the sanitary system will be designed to current code. It will be February 7, 2013 Meeting 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 elevated. It will be secured. The building will be raised and secured. There will be additional bulkhead work done, for which I believe you already have the regulatory permit. We think that the site will be safe and better protected from the storms that are coming through our way and it will most likely continue to. So that is always going to be a concern, what is built, is built to be safe. MEMBER HORNING: Thanks for the update. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think the audience ought to know from a legal perspective, a Special Exception permit is not granted perpetuity. It is subject to revocation by this Board to a public hearing process should the standards that is required by law to approve or disapprove such an application be in any way altered in any dramatic way. In other words, if in fact a Special Exception permit is granted by this Board, and they're not able to obtain the kinds of other permits or Site Plan approval that is required by law to proceed with the project as proposed, this February 7, 2013 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 Board has the right to revoke that permit. Unlike an area variance, which runs with the land, once granted, it's granted. The Special Exception permits are always subject to further review. So be mindful of the fact that this Board taking action is linked to other actions that other agencies will undertake, whether it's for the Health Department or the Planning Board. Jim, do you have a question or a comment? MEMBER DINIZIO: My concern as of the last date, is that we couldn't have anything to stamp at the end of the process to say that we were approving a restaurant on this property. This certainly makes it abundantly clear. That at this point, what's on that piece of property is what's there and of course knowing and for being on the Board for 25 years, the process is not complete here at all. You know, I certainly agree with the concept of some kind of restaurant there and you know, the marina has always been there. I just want to thank you for your hard work on giving February 7, 2013 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 me at least an idea of what is there. MS. WICKHAM: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I want to open up this hearing to the public now. Perhaps what we should do, is to have people address concerns at this point. Give them an opportunity to voice their opinions and raise the issues that they think are relevant. Is there anyone here that would like to do that? We also have things in writing, by the way, and that is sufficient, if people would prefer to submit comments in writing and have submitted comments. There is no need to enter it into the oral transcript of the hearing. They are a part of the record. They're attached to our files. They have all been read. The Board have copies of every single memorandum, e-mail and letter that anyone has written. We have all read them thoroughly and will consider them carefully. So let me just open it up to anybody. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application February 7, 2013 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 in any way? MR. MAUL: My name is George Maul. I live in New Suffolk. I am going to stand over here so I can address the audience well as the Board, if that's okay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually, you as need to address the Board. MR. MAUL: Okay. I appreciate all of the Board's deliberations. I appreciate all of the letters from the community. I understand all of the support for this project. It appears to me that in some sense, this Board is taking opportunity to kick the issue down the road. I understand a lot of this is about Planning, the Planning Department and it falls within their purvey, but I want to say that I think some extent, in my opinion, that this Board is kicking the issue down the road. As far as community support for this application, I think that the Zoning Board here should ask about -- besides asking about support, a raise of hands, a call for who supports this project and who doesn't support this project, I think that the February 7, 2013 Meeting 25 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 Zoning Board should also ask who -- when Gail stood up, she spoke about how this piece of property is downtown New Suffolk, and that is just not true. There are other business properties, hamlet business properties in downtown New Suffolk. This entire property is not the downtown New Suffolk business community -- excuse me, I am talking, Gail. If you call for a show of hands from a (In Audible) on First Street, adjacent to this property and who is in favor of this project and opposed to this project, you will get a very different the property. The people who live adjacent to this property are much more severely affected by what goes on there. It's all well and good if Barbara Schnitzter wants to come out from another town or wherever she wants to come from and say I want a hot dog at the Galley Ho, and that is a wonderful thing, but then she goes back to where she is and we're all there every day, showing. There is a reason why these applications come up, that notices are sent out to people who live within 200 feet of February 7, 2013 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 you know? And I think that is part of what is going on here. It's not clear, or else it seems like it's not clear to me. I understand the support from the community but there are businesses here -- parking and that are really planning issues but that is really all I have to say about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're right. They are Planning Board issues. This Board does not undertake SEQRA unless there is infrastructure that is not to code. In this case, that is not the case. And so for us to do so, would be at great length and at great costs for this Board and for the public to bear. Let me see if there are other comments. Please come forward and state your name for the public record. MR. VICTORIA: My name is Ted Victoria. I live -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Spell your last name, please. Victoria, V-I-C-T-O-R-I-A. My house is on First and Main Street. I am right at the owned upper center. My father originally February 7, 2013 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 that place and he used to have the Sip & Dip luncheonette there. It went out of business because there wasn't enough people to eat there. I am very concerned about traffic. New Suffolk has very few sidewalks. People walk in the street. On Saturday's and Sunday's in the summer, there is absolutely no place to park. People come down, they want to go down to the beach. A lot of them don't have parking permits to park on the beach. So a lot of them park on my lawn. Last summer, I had to call three times because I had cars and one trailer car up on my lawn. And I am really, really concerned, that when you open down day, up a space that is possibly bringing 60-70, possibly 100 more people down a that off the top of my head, I am just estimating could be 40, 50, 60, 70 more cars and bring more traffic into that town. It could be a disaster. It could really change that forever. I have been to a lot of places. I owned buildings in Soho. I saw what happened to that community. And the thing that I learned from all the great one February 7, 2013 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 things that happened to that community, it turned into a shopping mall. And what I am really afraid of, of this particular building and this particular space and putting in another restaurant, could make a big change in the community. And what I am afraid of, if you make that change and if you approve this restaurant, if you approve that many more people to come down into community, along with the many other things that they have planned or mentioned at the last meeting, which is an amphitheater, such as a nautical museum, plus this restaurant. You are going to make drastic changes to that community, where a lot of us live. I think you should go through those 25 letters or 35 letters that you received and try and determine how many of those people live down at that local corner. I don't -- It would be interesting to see where those people live. I will finish it up by saying that once you make the changes like this, there is no going back. There is no going back and saying, "Hey, we want New Suffolk back the February 7, 2013 Meeting 29 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way it was before." We could lose a private hamlet. Even with a restaurant like Legends, which is a destination restaurant, brings a lot of people in, but they close early and they serve good food. It's a very quiet place, and I mean, it works for the community, I think. And another thing to have two opposites next to each other in competition, I don't -- I am not too sure that it's a good idea. So I just don't want to see things happen that we can't change later on. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Let me just clarify some things relative to what you said, sir. This Board is considering a marine and restaurant use. No other uses are under consideration, nor would they be permitted without further action by this Board. Just to reassure you that falls and is considered by this Board. Is there any other comments? Please state your name. MS. FRIEDMAN: My name is Joni Friedman. We have lived in New Suffolk for 20 years. We live downtown and our very February 7, 2013 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 much passionately aware of how much just in the recent years, have brought our community together in terms of support and fundraising, hopes and dreams to bring back this area to a wonderful place. And my memories of 20 years ago when the Galley Ho was the only thing open in the entire area during storms and it was everyone's port during the storm. In the summer, we had lovely classes and activities and events that brought not only our community together, but people from our area that really love the idea of preserving a piece of our area. And there are so much destruction of our natural views. There are houses and properties that are just being devastated in our community that we have no control over and taking control and preventing this kind of construction and destruction and trying to preserve a view and a natural piece of our area, is so important to all of us that has been working so hard to support it, and I hope that all of you can see that. Those that live in the community that have lived here February 7, 2013 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 all these years, I hope that they can see eventually the bringing of a community together, and people supporting each other and wanting to be in an event and community project that really benefits all of us, and I thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Any other comments? MS. SCHNITZLER: Barbara Schnitzler, 220 Old Harbor Road. I am the Chair of New Suffolk Waterfront Fund. I would just like to address a couple of parking things that were brought up. We are aware that there is a parking problem in New Suffolk. Ted is talking about a parking problem that is not caused by us. It's a preexisting parking problem. We have provided the kind of parking that the Zoning Code asked to provide. We have also negotiated an arrangement to seal one-third of this property to somebody who is not going to use -- create any kind of parking problem at all. And that happens to be right across the street from both of their houses. So we're preserving an acre of February 7, 2013 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 property which will preserve our view and will not require a parking place. We have two other offers to sell that property. There were two other groups that wanted to buy that property. We opted for the one that would not create any traffic. So that one-third of our property is off the board for creating like any traffic problem at all. So we know by code and what Gail was referring to, that is the downtown. That is the whole street of downtown, not just our property. We understand and are willing to work with, and we have been working with. We have been allowing use of our parking for Legends and Summer Ball for the last three years because we understand if they park along that street they will have one half of their spaces, if we allow them to use ten feet of our property to do parking. We understand that, and it took us five years to raise money for this property. So by giving away part of our property for use by others, we are saying that we understand that there is a parking prolem, and we're trying to help with that February 7, 2013 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 parking problem. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the Board have any questions? MEMBER HORNING: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't think that we're kicking the can down the road quite honestly. This property could be used for high rack storage. It could be used for many more intense uses, without the fact of splitting it and preserving some of it, from what I can understand, the community again. To say that we're kicking it down the road, it's not true. With all of that said, I have been involved with the Zoning Board for 25 years and I have heard a lot of things. A lot of people standing up, you know, how they envisioned their piece of property to be and see the metamorphosis communicate into something different. I can tell you that I sat on the first Special Exception we granted for the winery Christina Vineyards. There was opposition to that. Mostly it was because as their February 7, 2013 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 lawyer said, we're putting barbs in their residential zoning. You just have to read the paper now to see the result of that decision, okay. It wasn't because of that decision, but it was how people envisioned. And I am sitting up here envisioning wine and cheese, with a piece of -- you know, something else, and what do we get, advertisements in the New York Times and a lot more traffic now. The reason for that is marketing. I have been skimming over the Legend thing, and I think that you all should read that. I am not trying to talk you out of what you want to do because it really sounds nice. I mean, I was against the park in Greenport because our tax basis was going to be affected by it. Something I hold near and dear to my heart, because Greenport School District has a (In Audible). I can tell you that I am down there every Friday night listening to the band. And if my 60-year-old body would let me, I would ice skate. But you really have to serously think about -- you are going to lease it to somebody who wants to make it a February 7, 2013 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 restaurant. He is going to want to make money on that. It's the only way to do business is to make money. Marketing is not something that I am particularly good at, but man, have I seen -- you think one thing and they're thinking another. You know, the Legend thing is talking about that. I just think you should think -- you're going down a long road. We all know that that restaurant -- even if it were in good shape today, could not exist today. You would need a building permit for a restaurant and a marina. It just couldn't. No matter what, even if the whole land was put together, I just don't think that it could run as a restaurant. So you're going to have to comply to today's standards and today's standards are much stricter. I mean, just drainage alone and having to keep drainage on your property, is going to be feat. So you guys may just want to consider-- you know I read all of your letters, they're nice. It seems nice that you can go out and seems nice that you can maybe have a small wedding and gatherings. That all really February 7, 2013 Meeting 36 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 seems nice but that is a long road. I wish you all the best of luck but I hope that you're looking at it through more businesslike mind then just hot dogs on a Saturday afternoon. Thank you. MS. WICKHAM: I do appreciate your comments and I certainly understand the regulatory and construction process. This is going to be brutal. What I did want to respond to quickly though, is that here you don't have the typical landlord/tenant if we do rent out the restaurant. You have the community group that is going to be the landlord. Not a private owner. It will have to respond to its operating capacity and behave as a business to the community. So I think that is an important point that the community needs to stay aware of. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, Gail. We appreciate all of the comments and the participation of this community of this project. Just to reiterate what is currently before this Board is a request to renew what expires as a Special Exception February 7, 2013 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 permit for a restaurant use. That is all that is before this Board. Public commentary is part of the necessary process. It's very important to us. We consider it very carefully. However, the Board has legal standards that we have to use in deliberating as to whether or not grant such an application. It isn't based upon public opinion. It isn't a vote upon the public. It's based upon what is set in the code. Again, commentary is very important to us. We consider it carefully but we can not proceed one way or the other by those comments because we have standards that we defer to are the basis by which this Board makes a determination. You either meet them or don't meet them. Having said that, is there anything else that the Board wishes to comment on? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I am going to propose that the Board do is because this is such an important application to the community, rather then propose to close the hearing today, I am going to propose February 7, 2013 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 that we close the hearing today subject to receipt for one week of any other written comment. We will close the oral record and leave the written record open for one more week in the event that you were not able to be here or someone has something more that they would like to inform the Board about. That is in all fairness for anyone in the community that wishes to further address this. Do you understand what we're saying? We're not going to take any more oral testimony. We're going to close this hearing but we will leave the written record for one week. If any of you are or neighbors wish to write anything, may do so through the office of the Zoning Board of Appeals to our secretary Vicki Toth. She will make sure that the Board gets copies of all of those. At the earliest onset, we will be deliberating on this application two week today -- actually it's going to be Wednesday. The Board had to change it's original meeting to Wednesday, the 20th of February, over in the Annex, which is the bank building down this way in the February 7, 2013 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 conference room. You are all welcome to sit and listen for the deliberations. There will be no testimony taken, but you are all welcome to attend. It will be on the agenda if we can have a draft by that time. We can take up to 62 days, in which time to deliberate. But I am sure that we will act much more swiftly than that. Is there any more comments? (No Response. ) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing none. I am going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to a one week frame for receipt of additional commentary. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6624 - ROBERT HOEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next February 7, 2013 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 application before the Board is for Robert Hoey, #6624. Request for variance from Article III Code Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's November 2, 2012, updated January 3, 2013 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for an accessory two car garage with shed and loft, at: 1) accessory building is proposed in a location other than the code required rear yard located at: Private Road, a.k.a. Treasure Road Pond, off East End Road, Fishers Island. MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the Hoey's. This is what I would like to describe as a technical application. This property was or is directly -- it has water view and it would be for all respects a waterfront property. It is not a local waterfront. There is a beach in front of it or the seaward side of it. So it does not conform as a waterfront property allowing a garage in the front yard. So due to that, the only reasonable location for this garage is in the front yard. The property is sloped and the area where the February 7, 2013 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 garage is proposed is adjacent to the circular driveway and the house. So the placement of it is very carefully thought through. And again, it's technical application because this property, Wild Waterfront views is not a waterfront property. It does conform in square footage. We have lot coverage. Everything else is conforming other than placement. I would be happy to address any questions that you have. I think the application speaks for itself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first thing that I need to do is talk about the affidavit of posting, which we didn't receive. We're going to have to have it obviously. MS. MOORE: Yes, of course. I believe CMS, the contractor was right there on the site and it would have been sent to him. Hold on a second. I apologize, it didn't get into my file. I will get it to you today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. Thank you. February 7, 2013 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 Actually, I would like to ask you the proposed garage has a second-story loft, is that heated, unfinished, finished? MS. MOORE: To my knowledge, it's not finished. It is -- let me see what the plans show. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It has built in cabinets and a window seat. So it kind of looks like it's going to be a tenant. I can't say, but it looks like it would be. MS. MOORE: I don't have any details on that. I apologize. It's not living space or sleeping quarters, but my clients intended use of it is whatever the code would allow, which is non-habitable space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, that is the thing that popped into my mind on what it was going to be used for. It looks like a finished space. George did a site inspection for us. George, do you have any comments or questions that you would like to raise? MEMBER HORNING: Sure. Was there any thought given to attaching the garage to this structure? February 7, 2013 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 MS. MOORE: That would have been something -- I did talk to them about that possibility but they did want to have it as a separate detached garage. There is a way that the design of the house wouldn't -- it wouldn't make sense to have a connection. I think the plans would have detracted away from the design of the house. So they did consider it, but as I said, they are not planning on using the second floor as living space or sleeping quarters. So I know had they wanted to do that, I had advised them to typically connect. MEMBER HORNING: To the extent that they could have attached it and not needed a variance, and it's a self created hardship to request a variance because they did have a choice? MS. MOORE: Well, no. Take a look of the topography of the property. The topography on the adjacent -- about the only location that you can put it is in the front of the house. Like directly in front of the entrance, which would not be in keeping with the design elements of the February 7, 2013 Meeting 44 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 house. If you attached it to the side, which is typically where you put a garage, you see the topography falls off. So designing an attached garage here, it really wasn't -- the property is so sloped. This is -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is generally true but this is a new house. It could have been designed differently. You know -- just wanted the record to show that there was a choice that the applicant made. This is not a preexisting dwelling. It was designed from scratch on this property and George's point is well taken -- MS. MOORE: I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If they had wanted to avoid a variance, they would have designed the house -- MS. MOORE: Sure. MEMBER HORNING: Because I want to lead in the question because of the differences of grade, because the garage is at elevation higher than the house, from my visual observation at the site at least. I don't know how many feet higher but it's February 7, 2013 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 built on a hill side. I was wondering if there is going to be any grading there to have it at a different height then -- the stakes are in the hill side so to speak? had a hard time figuring out where the slab of grade was going to be looking at it. MS. MOORE: You make some very good point and questions. What I would suggest is that I would bring the architect in and explain the rational. Sincerely, there was a lot of discussion between the architect and the owner that I wouldn't have been privy to. So the location -- after a lot of consideration because the first thing that we try to do is avoid a variance as possible. The only location would have been down the slope around the house, as you said. Placing the house where it was proposed is where they could keep the grades at a minimum. Changing the grades of the entire property, you kind of start working with the sanitary and work your way around to the location of the house. So I know there was a great deal of discussion, but I would prefer to have the architect February 7, 2013 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 here. So if you would want those, I would like to put on the record, the answers to those questions. Why don't we -- you can certainly give me as many questions as you would like and I can -- we can adjourn this to the time where I can get the architect out. He's coming from Manhattan. So quite frankly, I didn't anticipate that this was going to be a problem application given the character of the neighborhood and placing it as a detached garage in the front yard, where the code says itself, if this was a typical waterfront property, and for all intense purposes, it is a waterfront property. Just not the technical waterfront because of the little strip. I don't know who owns -- I think it's open space maybe. Is there a house down there? MEMBER HORNING: There is a house down there. MS. MOORE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The elevations do show that it is built into the grade. It's clear from these drawings on what's going on here. February 7, 2013 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 MS. MOORE: It's a looking it at one area one side and -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MS. MOORE: Right. other. MEMBER HORNING: Is there any way provide the -- at least approximate one-story from -- you know, from Two -- Two from the distances from neighboring houses? to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You could probably do a Google alert thing. MS. MOORE: Yeah. MEMBER HORNING: And that might help your argument. MS. MOORE: It may be in the main file. I can check. I will get the Google maps for you. I would have to see if provide that. MEMBER HORNING: I handy because it might feet from any adjacent think it might be be several hundred neighbors house. my surveyor can MS. MOORE: Well, I think to the property line, we have setbacks showing there. If you wanted from adjacent homes, February 7, 2013 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 MEMBER HORNING: It may be several hundred feet. And if you can provide distances -- MS. MOORE: I can give you approximate from the Google maps; if that is all right? MEMBER HORNING: Yeah. You can put it in the area of several hundred or whatever it is. MS. MOORE: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I would just like to see the architect tell me why he can't attach it to the house, I guess. MEMBER HORNING: It is flat ground. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: My question is, do we need to hold this hearing open for that, or can we have a written explanation from the architect as well as Google Earth map indicating the neighboring property, is that sufficient for this Board or do you think that you would want to question -- out, MEMBER DINIZIO: You said he's coming right? MS. MOORE: No. I would have to have February 7, 2013 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 him come out. If you really want to ask him several questions, certainly I could provide you with a written explanation of their thought process. That is not a problem. It could be as long or as short as you would like or I could have him come whatever questions you What utilities are here and ask him would like. MEMBER HORNING: going into the garage? MS. MOORE: Well, I don't believe -- we have the interior. I don't believe there is any water because there is not a bathroom. Typical -- yeah, there is no bathroom. MEMBER HORNING: Well, I am referencing on the one Hoey project, from Paul -- MS. MOORE: Yeah, I am looking at it. MEMBER HORNING: Provide underground utilities. MS. MOORE: Yes, we have electricity. MEMBER HORNING: It says provide water service next to it also. MS. MOORE: I believe that is to be February 7, 2013 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 able to put a hose. I don't see -- MEMBER HORNING: Electric? MS. MOORE: Yes. Of course. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just checked the fine print with my bible. It does indicate in the loft, lx4 Oak flooring. So certainly it is a finished space. MS. MOORE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Personally, and I will just poll the Board to see where we want to go. Personally, if the architect is able to answer in writing why either site was chosen and why not attaching, which they could do as of right. What kind of utilities will be in the proposed building, and how the loft will be used? The proposed use of the loft, you know, finished space. Is it heated? Is it unheated? We need to know that. And obviously it needs to be a non-habitable use. If I get that information, along with what George is requesting, distances to neighbors, the setback is quite substantial as proposed from the property line, if this building is very far away from other February 7, 2013 Meeting 51 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 residences and we're satisfied with the comments, I am okay with getting it in writing, rather than adjourning it to a another date and to talk to the architect. Let me see if the Board feels differently, and if that's the case, we will have a vote to adjourn and have the architect come in. Let's see how the Board feels? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am fine with you just said. MEMBER DINIZIO: I am fine with it. MEMBER HORNING: Me too. I will say that just an aesthetic type of reasoning and it is a hardship. you Well, that is That is what I what have to be aware of the fact that you're building against nature and not with it. MEMBER HORNING: You're building with nature. I take exception to that. I can't believe that somebody would build a house CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: probably the case. MS. MOORE: Exactly. was just going to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Certainly, when buy a piece of property like this, you February 7, 2013 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 and not have any forethought about having a garage. MS. MOORE: No, it has a zoned garage there but they wanted an additional garage for storage. in addition to the front of the house. have had to put Then -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: there is nothing on here attached garage. MS. MOORE: I think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: survey. MS. MOORE: Let me construction drawings of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So this is a detached garage garage that is in the Otherwise, they would a four-car garage attached. Interestingly, that shows an SO. We have the see if we have the house. We have notice one? I mean, there the photographs also. Did you MEMBER DINIZIO: No. might be one. MS. MOORE: Just give me a moment. I have a lot of pictures of this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is no driveway to it. I don't see -- there is a February 7, 2013 Meeting 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 circular MS. MOORE: CHAIRPERSON vehicular entrance. MS. MOORE: I MEMBER HORNING: quickly through the Change of character, driveway. You're right. WEISMAN: There is stand corrected. no If we may, just going area variance reasons. variance. here, because "the property is naturally sloped and the location of the garage is a plateau, but the garage is not on the plateau. The garage is on the hillside. The location of the detached garage is located at the gravel driveway and maintained the natural vegetation along the right of way." That to me, is really not a reason on why you need a variance. And then Statement #3, the amount of relief requested is not substantial, and yet it is substantial, because you're asking for it to be in a nonconforming location, which is I am reading from the submission on change. Benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area probably minor, if no February 7, 2013 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 a 100 percent relief from the way that we determine it. It will not have an adverse effect or physical impact on the environment and it probably won't. It's located away from wetlands. Statement as to why you need the variance and why you can't accomplish having the garage on the property, either in a conforming area or attached to the house, isn't addressed. MS. MOORE: I actually have -- this is what I put. When we were planning on where to put the garage, I provided to the architect what our considered rear yards, front yards and side yards. I will give it to you for the record. The house creates a side yard, which would not permit the placing the accessory structure on the side further to the rear yard. It's hard to describe. MEMBER HORNING: This is what I have here. I worked with Vicki to determine that. MS. MOORE: As you can see, you have side yard that would have created a variance. You have the rear yard in the February 7, 2013 Meeting 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 back, which is the sloped area and has the water views. And that is very sloped. You have where it is proposed in the front but meeting the setback, other than it's placement. And then you have the front yard, and as pointed out, the right-of-way, so we would need to put the garage over there as well. So this location seems most appropriate out of the alternatives. Do you want these for your file? MEMBER HORNING: I mean, those things make sense in the fact that if you needed a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any comments or questions from the Board? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application for Robert Hoey? MS. MOORE: Just very quickly, supportive and they had no was FITCO issue with this proposal. MEMBER HORNING: And again, just for the record, the proposed front yard setback is 108 feet? February 7, 2013 Meeting 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further comments, I am going to make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date, subject to receipt of a letter from the architect for the various questions that we have asked and the Google maps indicating the distances from residential homes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6620 - SHAMGAR CAPITAL, LLC (DANIEL BUTTAFUOCO) . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Shamgar Capital, Daniel Buttafuoco, #6620. Request for variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's February 7, 2013 Meeting 57 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 October 21, based on an for at: 1) more of stories 2 Kimberly Lane, Southold. We have a request on that application. that was prepared to application today? {No Response.) has 2012 Notice of Disapproval application for building permit construction of a third story addition than the code required number 1/2, located at: 1165 adjacent to Southold Bay in for an adjournment Is there anyone here address that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The architect submitted a letter dated February 3, 2013, requesting an adjournment because of the date of posting and mailings have not been completed. Hearing no comments, I am going to make a motion to adjourn this application to March regular meeting, which is March 7th at 10:00 A.M. Is there a second? MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. in favor? February 7, 2013 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 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: make a motion that we open ZBA File %6536, application the applicant's architect. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. I am going to the forum for a for request of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. That would be on for April 4th regular meeting. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING %6621 MMMM BEER, LCC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is MMMM Beer. That is application %6621. Request for variance from Article XI Section 280-47 and the Building Inspector's December 12, 2012 in favor? February 7, 2013 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 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for demolition and reconstruction of a portion of an existing commercial building at: 1) than the code required front yard less setback Main Peconic that of 100 feet, located at: 42155 Road, a.k.a. State Route 25, corner Lane, in Peconic. Is there someone here to represent of application? MR. VANDENBURGH: Yes. Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name record, and spell it. for the MR. VANDENBURGH: Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Richard Vandenburgh, and it's V-A-N-D-E-N-B-U-R-G-H. I am the principal for the applicant for the relief sought in this application before the Board. I am the principal for MMMM Beer. I have been a resident for Southold for over 20 years. I have been actively engaged in our community in many forums. I have local law firm for many appeared before this been a partner in a years and have even Board with a client or February 7, 2013 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 two. I have been an active leader with the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts in Southold Town and I am an active member on the Greenport Business Improvement District, and have also served as President of (In Audible) Insurance Property Owners Association for multiple terms. I have two children in Southold Public Schools, and have been married to my wife Ann, for 20 years, and she works at the Hampton Jitney in Greenport. However, I stand before you today not as an attorney but rather as a business owner that has been attempting to pursue my passion as developing a small but growing brewery business on the North Fork. Those of you that may not be familiar with our business, my partner and best friend John Liegey of more than 30 years, own Greenport Harbor Brewery. We are in Greenport next to the old jail on Carpenter's Street. Just to give you a little bit of a background on that, John and I became best joined a lifelong enjoying well friends in college and passion of making and crafted balanced ales. We February 7, 2013 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 dreamed of opening our own brewery one day. The opportunity arose in 2008 to purchase the small abandoned firehouse in Greenport on Carpenter's Street and we jumped at the chance. We then worked every available weekend and holiday vacation to renovate the building with our own hands. And yes, we both have very understanding spouses. After purchasing the building, we scraped together enough of our own savings and borrowed some money from family members in order to purchase a small brewing system that has been in Greenport for the last three us to hired and a half years. This system allows brew 465 gallons at a time. We then DJ Swanson as our head brewer in 2009 and officially opened up our doors on July 12, 2009. We have been lucky to receive high marks for our beer and have brewed more than 30 different styles. We started distributing kegs to our local restaurants and pubs in the local Greenport and Southold area, in fact, in the back of my wife's car. Present, we only produce draft beer and have not been able to offer February 7, 2013 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 any bottled because of our current space limitations in Greenport. After opening up in 2009, word got out and made it's way to beer lovers and enthusiasts from Montauk to New York City. We're lucky enough to join forces with a well company that began across the Island, upstate New York. respected crew of beer distributing our beer to to New York City and We have received distinction distinctive publications and Time-Out for our well balanced and styles from various from the Wall Street Journal and New York magazines. Our brewery in Greenport became one of the most famous stops people made when visiting Greenport in order to see the brewing process and taste the beers. Our fan base grew and customers stopped regularly to fill their growlers at the brewery and enjoy a sampling of the various styles on tap. Our ability to make the beer continues to another brewer, Greg and a sales manager, (phonetic) exceed our expectations and we hired Durowsky (phonetic Jeffrey Wisnowsky, both of local families here zn February 7, 2013 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 Southold. The space in Greenport was getting really tight in Greenport and reaching our maximum capacity in 2010. we made the brewery in order to kind with the growth of our small we realized additional space into which we could expand. We wanted to keep our business some short term physical changes of keep up business. that we would have to look after So at That for on the North Fork, and even though we realize that it would be much easier and less costly to move our operations to some industrial park in western Suffolk County or Nassau County, we believe strongly in keeping our production and brewing operations local and on the North Fork. There is a photograph on the easel, which you probably all recognize the Peconic location, which is the subject of the application. And for us finding this location, 42155 Main Road in Peconic appeared to be an ideal location. Originally built in or about 1927, by the Vale Brothers as a Pontiac Car Dealership, this property has seen a number of February 7, 2013 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 innovations, station, service facility. It is from car dealership, gas station and auto repair comprised of approximately 2.8 plus acres and it is zoned for General Business. So as we maxed out our production company in Greenport at the end of 2002, we envisioned renovating the Peconic location to support our growth and also into bottling our beer; however, it was important to us to not only enhance the visual appearance of the property but to also create an efficient and sustainable process that would support a growing business. To that end, we feel that it would be necessary to construct a new Cool Room on the property to house our beers. Based on the interior dimensions and the cost of the renovation and the existing footprint, we're seeking to locate this building on the same footprint as the prior structure. You will recognize this as Main Road and Peconic Road. This would be the production of the -- so this is the room that would be the beer garden. The area specifically talking about would be the February 7, 2013 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 rebuilding of the Cool Room. This is about an eight foot high building with a block structure. So it's not structurally sound. (In Audible). MEMBER HORNING: Sorry, you're proposing to take down that building then? MR. VANDENBURGH: Yes. That building, as we started to do some of the work to prepare the site, there are portions of that building that actually started to come down already. So yes, we're proposing to take down that building. So John and I believe strongly on a positive impact that this will have for the east end. It will provide more opportunities for sustainable jobs in the area. It will incorporate sustainable practices and promote a level of ecological harmony in a manufacturing setting. We're looking to incorporate environmentally technology and practices, solar rays. We're going to have a 50 kilowatt solar system on the roof. A rain water collection. We're planning to install some systems for a (In Audible) in a nonintrusive manner. Composting February 7, 2013 Meeting 66 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 practices, we actually supply that to several local farm practices that supply that to their local cattle in Riverhead and cattle in Cutchogue. So our objective is to really reflect the green in the Greenport Harbor Brewing Company. I am actually going to Audible). (Stepped away defer you to this. (In from the microphone.) MR. VANDENBURGH: This is all pavement. This is recycled concrete back here. I really want to make the property softer in terms of softer from the road. I want to make the parking lot all stone parking area. Again, the solar rays on the roof. This again, is the structure that we're talking about here. This is going to be the beer garden here. So I am extremely excited about transforming the property. So both John and I are extremely proud of our Harbor Brand and are involved in the hands-on development in our business as one could be. I have personally spent and will spend many days on the site with my tool belt on and shovel in hand working to make February 7, 2013 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 this property as acceptable to our local possible. We hope that aesthetically pleasing and neighbors as our neighbors and as to keep the physical state Southold Town will be proud to call home of the finest locally made craft beer on Long Island. We have never forget our humble beginnings that has helped us build long lasting and very friendly relationships with all our neighbors in Greenport and Southold. It is with that perspective in mind that we ask the Board to approve the application. That is a (In Audible). These are the visual elevations of what the property would look like. These actually hold (In Audible). (Stepped away MR. VANDENBURGH: We have taken building as much in a as possible in putting in a from the microphone.) steps because we feel there will not be any undesirable change as a result of what recess area. There will be a garage door about here. (In Audible) in that location. So more specifically, we submit and ask that the Board grant the application February 7, 2013 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 we're asking for. Our location relative to our neighbors is surrounded by businesses. You can see to the north and to the east of the property is agricultural, vineyards. Across the street is a large sod farm. So there should be no undesirable change as a result of us constructing at that location. Secondly, the benefit that we're seeking cannot be achieved by any method feasible for us to pursue other than the variance that we're asking for. Again, that is really relative to the structure of the building. to have it submit that substantial because in size and scope. It would not be feasible for us in any other location. We the amount of relief is not it's relatively limited Based upon the economic and functionality of the structure, it is going to be a structure that is extremely efficient. It will be made of five inch thick insulated (In Audible). You can see the color depiction in that elevation. So with the plantings that we plan to do around as much as possible, it should really fade into the back and into the February 7, 2013 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 other structures. We don't see any negative impact on physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood or the District. Certainly, there is no sites of vegetation that we want to perform this construction. We really would be putting it back where that building existed. And finally, we do feel that it is the minimum that is necessary while at the same time preserving and the protecting the character of the neighborhood and health, safety and welfare. So thank you very much and I would be happy to you might have. CHAIRPERSON for the benefit must be aware of the variances before this answer any questions that WEISMAN: I just want to of the public, that you fact that these Board are for a front yard setback. The code requires 100 feet. The building is preexisting nonconforming in that, and you will be building 80 feet from the front yard. That is the relief that is being requested by this Board. It is a B Zone. So the only thing that is February 7, 2013 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 before us is for that front yard setback. I would also like the record to reflect that we have received today comments from the Planning Board. We have to automatically send these applications to them, and the application has been reviewed and the Planning Board has no objection to the requested area variance on the basis that the building is existing, not expanding its footprint and appropriate for overall use of the building. The proposed construction would appear to be screened by the existing building and obstruction by large views of Peconic Land. May I ask you to move that easel over, so I can please see everybody. Thank you for the very lovely presentation. Ail right. Let's begin with questions. Jim, do you have any? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. Could you describe for me what a "Cold Room" does? MR. VANDENBURGH: Sure. A Cold Room is like a large refrigerator. Our beer in the process of manufacturing the beer, it's not pasteurized. So our beer has to be February 7, 2013 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 kept cold in order to ensure its shelf life so to speak, freshness. So we maintain a cold room at approximately 34 to 36 degrees. MEMBER DINIZIO: So it's not -- you're doubling the height of the ceiling? MR. VANDENBURGH: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: So it's not that you're putting tanks in there, that is not the case? MR. VANDENBURGH: No. The reason for the height of the building, again, trying to stay within the footprint of that existing structure, we -- right now we produce about 3,000 barrels. Theoretically, with all the approved Suffolk County Health Department and permits that we have, we can theoretically generate almost up to 54,000 barrels of beer in a year. The Cold Room has that height because the stacking of the product. You put stuff on the floor and then you have the shelves, so that you can stock the product of beer. The ingredients, we keep hot and cold. Ail that is stored on racks. February 7, 2013 Meeting 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And the reason why the building is as high as it is, is because it improves the efficiency and be able to maintain all of that in the accurate temperature that we need. So we go up instead of going out wider. MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought I saw a ramp there, could there still be a ramp where you could back up trucks? MR. VANDENBURGH: There may have been when I submitted my original application. There was a hand drawn site plan that my sister had done, and the plans may have also showed that there was a loading dock. We do plan in the future at some point to put a loading dock, so trucks would be able to come off Peconic Lane and back up because part of the process is while we load the beer into the Cold Room, at some point we're going to have to get it out towards the truck. So the trucks can head off to New York City or wherever. There is a plan for some time in the future to put that recessed loading ramp. You know, right now we're counting our nickels and February 7, 2013 Meeting 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rolling our done. Room back idea an to quarters to do what needs to be MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MR. VANDENBURGH: From this perspective, to give you an idea, with this being the Cold Room here, the truck would be backing up here to the Cold Room. MEMBER DINIZIO: So that is your proposal now? MR. VANDENBURGH: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: So it's not going to be effecting the parking or that side lane there? Backing in and out? MR. VANDENBURGH: Nope. There was one lane right here that had an existing garage door but that is not accurate because it efficient process. MEMBER DINIZIO: So now, when you want do it, how do you propose the truck? MR. VANDENBURGH: I can show you -- MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that by the Cold MR. VANDENBURGH: It would be on the side of the Cold Room. Kind of the of product in and product out. It's February 7, 2013 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 talks about blocks that. MEMBER (In Audible). DINIZIO: anticipate using that MR. VANDENBURGH: That door will not be deliveries. MEMBER DINIZIO: have. CHAIRPERSON That essentially So you don't door? Absolutely not. used for any Okay. That's all I WEISMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: Just to make it clear, referring to this Notice of Disapproval permit to demo and reconstruct a portion, that portion being shown on the site plan as the area that has the raised roof in this area? MR. VANDENBURGH: Yes. In that area. MEMBER HORNING: This area here? MR. VANDENBURGH: Correct. MEMBER HORNING: With an addition added on? MR. VANDENBURGH: Absolutely. If you look at the old photographs, what we're proposing to do is square that off. MEMBER HORNING: And the 80 foot February 7, 2013 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 setback is to Peconic Lane? MR. VANDENBURGH: That's my understanding. MEMBER HORNING: I just want to be clear. Are you going to have some pathway doors clear to go into the restaurant of the structure besides the area to take things out that Jim was asking about? MR. VANDENBURGH: That's correct. This area is where the interior garage area will be, that will allow us to take the beers here and move the bottles here. MEMBER HORNING: And the tasting room, that is not the same thing as "brew pub" or is it? MR. VANDENBURGH: Well, each room there is different licenses. We have a tasting room in Greenport. We are allowed to serve people four ounces of beer, per style. If we have eight styles of beer, I can serve you four ounces of each one of those styles. (In Audible). (Stepped away from the microphone.) MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is way down February 7, 2013 Meeting 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 the road. MEMBER HORNING: I am not going to go there because my doctor told me several years ago, that I was drinking too much beer. He said lay off the beer and stick with wine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not today. Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this application? Please come forward and state your name for the record. You are going to have to spell it too. MR. LAFRENIERE: My name is Dave LaFreniere, L-A-F-R-E-N-I-E-R-E. I own the adjacent properties next to the brewery, and I am not much of a speaker. I will just stick to the point. I think that this is a wonderful thing. It's a breath of fresh air for Peconic and the Southold Town, especially I am a beer drinker. I think it's a wonderful thing. I do have some concerns being on the corner there for February 7, 2013 Meeting 77 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 30 years, trucking and limousines, and Peconic Lane is a very dangerous corner in the summer time. And we have one garage door there that says "receiving." And I know that tractor trailer trucks are about 70 foot long, and that would be a very bad situation into receiving anything into that garage door. Especially when people are darting down Peconic Lane without paying attention sometimes. The other concern that I have is with the parking on the east side of the building, because it's a very dangerous intersection and I was just worried that the entrance and exit of that parking lot is too close to Peconic Lane, where it's a blind spot as it is. That is my only concern. Otherwise, I am a supporter of this whole thing. I think that it's wonderful. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Maybe I can ask a question just as a follow-up. Do you propose to use the Peconic Lane for ingress and egress for anything other than commercial usage and deliveries? February 7, 2013 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 MR. VANDENBURGH: The Peconic Lane side is only going to be for the factory. We have a couple of employees that will park there cars back there and the trucks that would come, which again, it's not going to be a truck everyday. It's going to be a truck once a week kind of thing, you know at best. Maybe a truck once or twice a week. It will be no closer than the larger structure that is the entrance to get to the back would go up the Peconic Lane side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They are large trucks? MR. VANDENBURGH: trailer size trucks. I accurately reflects the allow the truck to pull They are tractor think that area that will in and be able to turn and then back up to the loading dock. So there will be plenty of room to navigate off Peconic Lane. Simply pulling in and pulling out won't be a problem. The area that they will be pulling in and pulling out of is essentially directly across the entrance from the Town Highway Department, February 7, 2013 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 they have trucks there all the time. a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: pulling in and out of So that should not be Can you tell us approximately how many section to where that is? MR. VANDENBURGH: necessarily to scale, 175 feet down. It should right around here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: feet it is from the ingress and egress While this is not I would say at least be in this area Do you propose any signage indicating where the public entrance and exits will be, and -- VANDENBURGH: I really haven't about that in detail. Just to LaFreniere's point, we do (In Audible). So Phase MR. thought address Mr. envision -- I is try and finish what we're doing here now. We still have to go back to the Planning Board and discuss what I want to do all back here, which I am quite certain, is going to necessitate additional entrances and parking area. At that point, signage -- you know, the public is going to be to February 7, 2013 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 addressed to these areas. Maybe it makes sense to have signage that says "employee parking only." Maybe someplace over here direct public over here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: At the moment, Site Plan is not required for what you're proposing but I believe that is an important issue should there be any additional traffic impact as a result of standing operation that you would really need to go back and change the scale. That is usually part of the Site Plan process. I think that it's an appropriate thing to be brought up here. I think we all here are aware of the traffic situation. MR. VANDENBURGH: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other questions from the public? Please come forward. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Hi, Dave Cichanowicz. Do I need to spell my last name? C-I-C-H-A-N-O-W-I-C-Z. I am speaking as a long time resident and business owner in Peconic. Yes, I did help him put this plan together but I am involved in the February 7, 2013 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 stakeholders project that we did for Peconic and reviewing and looking back at the time when our Board got together to think about the integrity and the future of what we see the little hamlet of Peconic and in keeping up with the times in allowing some growth of business for Peconic to the areas that kind of work. This fits perfectly into our future plans that we saw Peconic Lane as a whole developing. We do now have the recreational areas in kind of the central part. We have the rec centers now at the beginning. Now we have a brewery. It's a nice improvement over a car dealership, where all you see is blacktop and cars lining the road. And probably more hazardous and traffic problems with a car dealership then a brew pub. Maybe, maybe not. Just in my opinion as a long time resident of Peconic. I just live down the road from there and seeing all the changes that have, I thought that this was a really great change for the area. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Does February 7, 2013 Meeting 82 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 the Board have any questions? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else in the audience? (No Response. ) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would like to say one thing. It's very welcoming to see the flourishing of a local business. It goes well for all of us, and Peconic. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board, I am going to make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING #6623 - PETER AND TERESA BENOTTI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Peter February 7, 2013 Meeting 83 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 and Teresa Benotti, #6623. Requests for variances under Sections 280-105 II (A and B), based on the Building Inspector's November 15, 2012 Notice of Disapproval concerning "as built" 5 foot high fence and "as built" 8 foot high fence around a single family dwelling at: 1) fence height at more than the code permitted 6 1/2 feet in height when located in a front yard, 2) fence height at more than the code permitted 6 1/2 feet in height when located in the side and rear yards, at 930 Clearview Road, adjacent to Cedar Beach Harbor, in Southold. Is there someone here to represent the application? MR. BENOTTI: Yes. Good morning. Good afternoon, actually. My name is Dr. Peter Benotti. I am the homeowner and I am representing myself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Do you have any green cards that you may have? MR. BENOTTI: We have submitted all that we have received. I have submitted a tracking slip for one of the nonreturned February 7, 2013 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 envelopes. And the one that returned to sender. And I have a letter for another neighbor, which represents another letter that was returned unopened. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. And I am going to give you a copy of a memorandum from the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program from the coordinator indicating that the action is exempt from LWRP review. That is just for your records. Because of the waterfront property, it's being reviewed by the LWRP Coordinator and it indicates that the fence that you built is exempt from the LWR?. It's considered a minor action. So it would appear that you have built a fence at 5 foot high in the front yard, where the code requires 4 feet. And 8 1/2 feet partially in the front yard because your house is setback. It's still considered a front yard because of the side of your property where your house is setback -- it's technically starts at the side of your house. MR. BENOTTI: I am not sure that there is actually any 8 foot component on the February 7, 2013 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 front of the house because on the west side of the house, the fence fence. He already had a is the neighbors deer fence. So we did not put a fence there. His fence is 9 feet high. Well, the Notice of Disapproval indicates 8 feet in the side and rear yard? MR. BENOTTI: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that would be along the water side and east side of the property and the side yard. Okay. So what would you like to tell us about your application? MR. BENOTTI: Well, all I can say that this was a result of an honest mistake on our part. We submitted an application for this fence and I believe the application called for a 6 foot fence to the Town Trustees. accepted, consultant came in When the application was I engaged a fence company. for an estimate. A it quite clear that our only chance adequate deer protection was to put foot fence, and a 6 foot fence would be inadequate. This was corroborated with some discussions by neighbors and I He made at up an 8 February 7, 2013 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 honestly never thought to go back to check to see what the Town statutes were about fence size. And didn't go back to check the application. We went on and spent money and built the fence, and then received -- and when I had the Town come back for the follow-up inspection, we were advised that it was in error. So I really don't have anything else to say other than it was honest mistake. We live on a dirt road. There has been no adverse harm or effect on neighbors regarding the fence height. In fact, it compliments as you can see. Giving the issues that we have had in our family with regard to health related issues and pets with deer problems, I was anxious to get some deer protection. And I must say that I overlooked it in going back and checking the statutes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I must say that I do understand given the location of the property why you would do this for the deer and ticks and all of that. It's a very wooded area and huge amounts of activity of deer. The code when it was February 7, 2013 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 changed, to permit the fencing only did so on agricultural properties to protect crops essentially. And that code needs to be looked at again, but it's not within the jurisdiction of this Board to do that. We grant relief from the code, but we don't change interpretation of the code. The 5 foot high fence that exist, which is very permeable, the wrought iron part is not as a substantial of a variance from the 4 foot height. Particularly since it's not stockade and not opaque. You can see through it in my mind. Once the Board accepts an 8 foot high fence, we have to consider the consequences and the other types of consequences of setting a precedent. Whereby every one of your neighbors could be coming in to request exactly the same thing. The fact that the code changed and as to why that happened. If you understand what I am saying. MR. BENOTTI: I understand fully. I have a letter which comments on the caliber of the sided fence and the fact that it's see through and doesn't cause any aesthetic February 7, 2013 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 issues in his view. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am just reading the letter now. Okay. Well, I do have to agree that you have done it certainly very well. It's a beautiful installation. Most deer fence are pretty tacky looking. However, it is possible to cut down that 8 foot fencing to 6 1/2 feet to the side yard and waterfront side. That would require some work. That is something that this Board will consider. I just wanted to advise you of that. Jim, do you have any comments or questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, any comments or questions? MEMBER HORNING: I have a comment, maybe. I thought while I was around there, I thought I had seen one other location nearby that had deer fencing. I don't know who that was. questions. CHAIRPERSON MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't have any other WEISMAN: Ken? I just concur what February 7, 2013 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 you said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Any other comments from the audience? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no further comments or questions, I am going to make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING %6622 - BREEZY SHORES COMMUNITY, INC. (NAOMI MULLMAN) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next application before the Board is for Breezy Shores Community, Naomi Mullman, #6622. Request for variances from Article XXIII Code Section 280-123, Article XXII Section 280-116(B) and the Building Inspector's February 7, 2013 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 October 22, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for additions and alterations to a seasonal cottage at; 1) a nonconforming building containing a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved, unless such building is changed to a conforming use, 2) less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located at #11 Breezy Shores Community, Inc., 65490 Main Road, a.k.a. State Route 25, a.k.a. Sage Boulevard, adjacent to Shelter Island Sound in Greenport. State your name for the record. MR. HERRMANN: Good afternoon. Robert Herrmann of En Consultants for the applicants. We're here today, and knowing that your last experience for a variance request on one of the cottages here representing something less than an enjoyable experience for you all. And knowing that, we have spent the better part of last year, designing this project. Considering feedback and any input from February 7, 2013 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 myself, from Joe Fischetti, from the Building Department and from the Breezy Shores Community and Architectural Committee. It has indeed been our mission to eventually end up here in front of you today with a project and an application before you today that you will hopefully find in bright contrast to your past experience. The project consists of essentially of renovations. Some up with a cottage that will similar to what is existing, roughly structural or design result of which will end look remarkably but with deteriorating conditions, repairs to improve aesthetic appearance, to improve personality and to improve protection. Specifically, proposes first to replace flood the project the foundation of the cottage, which is in bad shape. Two, to raise the finished floor of the cottage by 2 feet 5 inches to provide flood protection. The area where this particular cottage is located is in an AE-6 Zone under FEMA which requires a first floor elevation of 8 feet. That we're proposing to go up February 7, 2013 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 to a 10 foot elevation because if you look at the FEMA map, this cottage and the ones next to it are actually located just landward of the LiMWA line. The line of moderate wave activity. So to be cautious in light of all the weather that we have been having, we will continue to have very soon, we would like to raise the cottage. To reconstruct in place with the same dimensions the water side room, which like many other Breezy Shore cottages in that area that have been worn down over the years. They are the rooms that face the Shelter Island Sound. To reconstruct the existing bathroom, which is a 5 1/2 foot roughly 6 foot bathroom and expand it by 3 1/2 feet. And in doing so, bring the ceiling height and fixtures in that room into conformance with New York State regulations. From the first time that I met David and Joe at the property, I can personally attest to the fact that the bathroom is not able to be used by a grown man in a traditional way that a grown man would use a bathroom. They would also like February 7, 2013 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 to replace the existing roof and raise the roof about 1 foot higher to create more reasonable head room inside the cottage. There is a proposal to add a small eyelet dormer that would allow increased lighting, and there is also a proposed -- what will be like a fenced in outdoor shower adjacent to the back. I just handed up to Leslie before we started, and I think you have if you want to lay them out on the chairs, some of the photographs that we had submitted with the application that show an actual photograph of the existing cottage and then a rendering of the proposed. The application although you have not stated it yet, is that we're under the understanding that it is exempt from the LWRP waterfront consistency review because all of the work entails either in-place replacement of existing structure or an expansion but an expansion that is located more than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Now, despite that, we still need variance relief from this Board, because like all of the Breezy cottages, the cottage itself is less than 75 feet February 7, 2013 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 from wetlands. So under your usual interpretation of that of the Building Department, it's an expansion of a nonconforming building with respect to setbacks requires relief. And the Board had also previously determined, I believe from a similar case, that all of these seasonal cottages are a nonconforming building and nonconforming uses, which have been noted on the onset, cannot be expanded without relief, unless they're converted to a conforming use. Now, as the Board knows, the subject cottage is 1 of 28 seasonal cottages that were established on the property in the early 1900's. When they had workers of the former state brick factory who later rented to summer guests in the 1940's. The cottages have been individually owned by shareholders along with the real estate property known as Breezy Shores Inc. As recognized in the matter of Hernan Otano, ZBA case #6525, because each share is governed by the cooperative that is a proprietary lease, that permits only residential uses on the property. The February 7, 2013 Meeting 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Board stated, "any other use permitted in the Town Code is virtually impossible, given the cooperative ownership." Indeed, if the use of the cottage were changed to anything other than the existing residential one is seasonal cottage, the applicants ownership in the cottage would be rendered without value. With respect to whether granting these area variances would cause a detrimental change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to neighboring properties, it was again determined in the Otano case, is it's unique properties that represents its own neighborhood of more than 82 acres and is far removed from adjoining owned properties. Another adjacent property could or would be adversely impacted by the proposal. With respect to protecting the interest of neighboring shareholders, the adjacent cottages are of similar size, larger, and similar setback from the bulkhead. As a result of the proposed renovation, there would be no change to the preexisting 55 foot bulkhead setback and February 7, 2013 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 the overall degree of nonconformity. It would be only changed minimally. Specifically, the net result of granting for the proposed renovation would be a cottage standing approximately 3 feet taller, which would come from the 2 feet of the foundation and a foot higher from the roof. Located at the same distance from the bulkhead, but with a total floor area of 677 square feet, rather than 657 square feet. We're in a 20 foot increase in footprint, it would be restricted to an approximately to a 3 1/2 by 5 1/2 foot out located more than 75 feet from the bump construction plans have been submitted to and approved by the cooperative Board of Directors and their architectural committee. We had submitted with our application originally, an e-mail that was wetlands. That again is the back. Therefore the character of the neighborhood would not be substantially changed, nor a change in a way that would adversely effect shareholders. In fact, as it is required within the cooperative, the proposed February 7, 2013 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 sent by the Board. Vicki had sent me something to provide something more formally from Breezy Shores Community and so here I hand up to you now, I think I e-mailed it to Vicki, but here is a hardcopy of the letter. (In Audible). (Stepped away from the microphone.) MR. HERRMANN: Both Breezy Shores Community and committee approve of the renovations. Mathematically the variance requested requires approximately 20 feet or 26 percent setback relief from the bulkhead. The only proposed footprint expansion would be the 20 square foot size of the bathroom, which exceeds the 75 foot setback. And again, it's to fix and come in compliance with New York State, which is to basically make it a usable bathroom. Otherwise, the cottage will remain the same location as it has existed since the 1940's. None of it will result in any substantial appearance or character of the cottage. Any variance relief in this community, in general, would not have an impact on the physical and environmental February 7, 2013 Meeting 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conditions of the neighborhood for the reasons described above with respect to uniqueness and insulated location of the project site. The relief would also not have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the immediate site or the larger subject of the property. The location of the cottage with respect to wetlands will remain unchanged. The footprint will increase only minimally, by 3 percent, as a result of the 20 square foot addition to the bathroom. And thus as a result of the proposed renovation, a} there will be no change in wetland setbacks of the cottage, b) the structural footprint of the cottage will only increase by 20 square feet, c) the presently lacking drainage of leaders, gutters and drywells will be added to the house to install and and capture roof runoff from the cottage, d) the finished cottage will exceed the FEMA base law flood elevation to provide improve future protection against potential flooding damage. The project has been determined to be out of the jurisdiction, February 7, 2013 Meeting 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 both for freshwater and the wetlands for the New York State Environmental of Conservation, a) because the titled wetlands is separated by the pre-1977 storm line bulkhead and it's 600 feet from freshwater wetlands and other sides of the property that are opposite of the water. And finally speaking to the variance standards, the need for relief is self created pursuant to the argument that the owner invested in the cottage with full knowledge of the zoning code. That without the proposed renovations, no relief would be necessary; however, to the extent that, a) any dwelling would ultimately and unavoidably require some reconstruction and/or structural alterations to allow for reasonable improvements and modernization, and b) that any accessory structural alteration here, would be deemed to require area variances. The relief of need is not -- solely not self created but also by the fact that the Zoning Code simply now prohibits activities that were at one point not prohibited. I am not going to go February 7, 2013 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 through this. We included a few addendums, one relates to the construction process and how the work would be done. The sequence in how the work would be done. That construction methodology has been designed together between Mr. Fischetti as the engineer and David Mullman as the architect, and we're filing for the records, so there is an enforceability as what we're proposing to do. We have noted as Addendum B, the approval process of Breezy Shores and with that submitting of that letter, we're hoping to ensure the Board that the Breezy Shores Community is in fact supporting the Mullman's in their effort here. And then finally, an addendum, that I am sure you are familiar with, we have added some information from the New York State Residential Code with respect to fixture clearances and ceiling height from the bathroom. So with that, I will complete my presentation. I think there are some folks here from the community who might to say a word, if you would give them a chance to do so. And February 7, 2013 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 the Board with any I, or Joe or David then return it back to questions, that either can help with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: like to address the Board? MS. ZARKA: Good afternoon. My name is Helen Zarka, and I am on the Board of Breezy Shores, and I just wanted to say that we're in full agreement that the Mullman's are doing. In fact, we're very excited about the project because now a lot Who else would of the cottages are not condition. And are making are exactly in fine the improvements that they improvements that would benefit the community. Ail of the shareholders are on Board with this project. Mr. Herrmann has mentioned that the Architectural Committee has approved it. Our job, as a Board, would be to monitor the Mullman's work and make sure that everything is done that is approved by you. We're going to keep on top of this and make sure that they aren't any problems, and we certainly don't expect to have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. any . February 7, 2013 Meeting 102 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WILSON: Good afternoon. Donald Wilson is my name. I am the president of the Board this year. I would just like to agree with everything that Helen has said. I would like to say something too about the size of the bathroom. Mine has a big sign on there that says, "hard hat required." So I can understand the reason to increase the size both up and out. It's true, we have been through a few unfortunate instances and the Mullman's have done things according to the code. We have been on top of all of this. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? MS. PETSKY: and I am on the CHAIRPERSON your name again? MS. PETSKY: Mary need me to spell? Hi, I am Mary Beth Petsky Board of Breezy Shores. WEISMAN: Can you state Beth Petsky. Do you wanted CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you spell the last name, please? MS. PETSKY: P-E-T-S-K-Y. And I just to say that we wholeheartedly February 7, 2013 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 support the Mullman's. They are not only wonderful neighbors but they have been forthcoming with all information with regards to this project. So we fully support them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Anyone else? (No Response.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's see if we have any questions from the Board. Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. I guess this is for the architect or for Rob, the expansion for the bathroom is a result of compliance to the New York State Building Code? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you please just state your name? MR. MULLMAN: David Mullman, architect. Yes, the New York State Residential Building Code. The diagrams that were copied and are part of your application are from that. And they're called out what the numbers of the sections are. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. No other questions at this time. February 7, 2013 Meeting 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: MEMBER HORNING: foundation? The new George? Can you describe the foundation, are you going to achieve putting it in place? And it's going to be 2 feet higher out ground, I believe that is what you said? And my last question would be, also state in here in your arguments, it's going to be higher than what the requirement is. You might have said 2 I am not sure. What is the FEMA of the all you that FEMA feet, Code. The Building Department requires the first floor elevation to be less than 8. In looking at that format, there is a very large portion that has a limit of moderate requirement, and how much higher is it going to be? Those are my questions. MR. HERRMANN: George, we will give the answers in the reverse order that you asked for. FEMA is -- based on the format that I printed out from FEMA's website, there is a good portion of Breezy Shores that is AE-6. So that based flood elevation, plus the 2 feet, that is required by New York State Residential February 7, 2013 Meeting 105 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wave energy, the "LiMWA line" as they call it, on this property, which without getting into a whole discussion about LiMWA, what it does is basically, that there is going to be the possibility of -- say a storm event like Sandy, where the property is going to get flooded over the bulkhead. And what the Mullman's proposal has been would be to bring the first floor elevation to 10. So they would be exceeding by 2 feet, that the Building Department would require by a minimum. The number that you may have heard when I mentioned 3 feet, is when I was talking about what the final product would look like, that the top of the building would be 3 feet than it is now, in addition to raising the elevation 2 feet, and it's also to put an adequate headroom at the top. The answer to your question is 8, and the proposal is 10. MEMBER HORNING: So the current elevation is 8? MR. MULLMAN: The current elevation is 8. To replace the foundation, which is in poor condition at the moment. To replace February 7, 2013 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 it, unless we can demolish the house, which I know we can't. The replacement that you have to put steel underneath it and raise the house. We just thought that it's prudent after going through the trouble to raise the house and build a new foundation, to make it a little bit higher. MEMBER HORNING: And what is the material of the foundation? MR. MULLMAN: Joe, do you want to tell him? MR. FISCHETTI: Just to clarify -- Joe Fischetti, engineer. The limited wave action actually changes an A Zone to a V Zone. That is basically what it does. So just to give you a background, that is where you get the other 2 feet. So now if you're actually in a V Zone, you want to put the bottom 2 feet higher. UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (In Audible). MR. FISCHETTI: It's not. I was clarifying that the logic of the numbers -- I just wanted to make sure. We don't do that in the Town of Southold. The concrete -- because it's in a A Zone, we're using a February 7, 2013 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 stem wall foundation, which is concrete. Standard footing, concrete walls and some reinforcing, and would add flood vents that are required by FEMA code to allow flood waters to go in and go back out of there. MEMBER HORNING: So is it like a crawl space in there? MR. FISCHETTI: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: How high? MR. FISCHETTI: The crawl space can't be any higher than the existing grade because it would have to allow the water go right back out. I don't have those numbers on my mind. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Excuse me. I want to make sure that we get you on the record. MR. FISCHETTI: front of me. just I don't have it in to just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you please speak into the microphone. MR. FISCHETTI: I know I worked this out with David. The lowest point outside on the grade is 5.7. So it's about 6. We have a finished floor of 10 and then we February 7, 2013 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 have a foot after that and about 3 feet of crawl space. Those numbers just happen to work because we have to allow the water. That it goes into the crawl space and back out. The bottom of that crawl space has to be no higher than that. MEMBER HORNING: One the building remain Does final question. seasonally occupied? MR. MULLMAN: Yes. The building has no heat. No one at Breezy has heat, it will be insulated but it will remain seasonal. Not for winter use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Could you or either Joe, describe for the record, you will use the documented plans and a detailed description of the what you have proposed? The Board would be interested in noting for the record, the existing condition of the cottage and what impact that will have it when you raise it to the new elevation? MR. FISCHETTI: The south area has some conditions that need some improving, the front side. A lot of the support February 7, 2013 Meeting 109 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 posts, but that is the reason why we're raising it. Generally, when they're lifted they get supported inside. The lifting of this structure will have no bearing on anything that will damage the house. It will not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board has, you know, frequently looked at things as that were not supposed to be demolished and there are no walls. MR. HERRMANN: Just again, and I know this has been stated, the walls in the bathroom are in fact coming apart. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. And the proposal of a landward expansion of 20 feet. Jim, questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there any way that he cannot do the 20 square feet? In other words, if you can fit that bathroom inside the square footage? MR. MULLMAN: When you look at the plans, the rooms inside are fairly small. Basically, it's 13 feet wide. The bedrooms are 9 feet. The kitchen is like 10 and 11. February 7, 2013 Meeting 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So to take the bathroom and put it inside the cottage, I think it would make the use of the cottage much worse for us. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's only a cottage? MR. MULLMAN: It's only 600 square feet. It's small. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's only a cottage and not a house. MR. MULLMAN: Right, but we use it for the summer. We use it for weekends. Sometimes we spend a couple of weeks there. And we like sitting in the living room. We have a very small bedroom. I just think that it's too small to put the bathroom inside the cottage. It's already very, very tight. I was fine with it when we bought it. To put a bathroom inside of it, I think that would be difficult for us. MEMBER DINIZIO: You bought it and it was there. MR. MULLMAN: We did. MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe you can come back with something and show me where that is, why you can't just fit it inside the house that exist? February 7, 2013 Meeting 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. MULLMAN: Anything could be done, but I would object to that. It would take away from our current use of the house. MEMBER HORNING: Is the bathroom outside of the house now? MR. MULLMAN: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: And is the new bathroom going to be in the exact same place? MR. MULLMAN: Exactly where it is. Instead of it being 5x5, it will be 5x8 essentially. MEMBER DINIZIO: The house is already, according to the Notice of Disapproval, it's not according to the code. MR. MULLMAN: The house on one side of my cottage, I have a three bedroom cottage. A much bigger cottage. On the other side, I have an identical cottage. So when the cottages are between sizes, I am not asking to make mine one of the grander cottages. There are cottages that are much larger. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually, I have a question for one of the Homeowner's Association. If one of you can come to the February 7, 2013 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 microphone? Your Board has reviewed this application, you have placed restrictions on the property that limits or prohibits expansion of the existing cottages? Is that true? MR. WILSON: Can you repeat that again? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will rephrase it. According to the restrictions that are imposed on all of your properties, limit the expansion of the cottages -- MS. ZARKA: Those are our By-Laws. It's in the Rules and Regulations. We allow expansion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: expansion? MS. ZARKA: It doesn't. That would be something that would be determined by the Architectural Committee and the Board. It just states that expansion will be allowed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. MS. ZARKA: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other questions from the Board? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. Do they define February 7, 2013 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 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? (No Response. ) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no further questions or comments, I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution.) (Whereupon, the February 7, 2013 Regular Meeting concluded.) February 7, 2013 Meeting 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATION I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of the Hearings. Signature ~_~~~ Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter PO Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 Date: February 18, 2013