The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-12/04/2014 Hearing December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK:STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Southold,New York December 4, 2014 9:35 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN-Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES—Member(arrived at 8:38 A.M.) GERARD GOEHRING'ER—Member GEORGE HORNING—Member(left at 2:14 P.M.) KENNETH SCHNEIDER—Member VICKI TOTH—Board Assistant STEPHEN KIELY—Assistant Town Attorney(arrived at 9:05 A.M.) December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page 55 COX NECK ROAD REALTY, LLC#6816 3-24 CAPT. RED'S MARINE SALES#6810 24 RICHARD and BOBETTE SUTER#6815 24-27 JAMES KNOBLOCH#6809 27-39 ROGER HERMAN#6812 39-42 LAURA COLIN KLEIN#6817 42-43 ALLEN SANKOVICH#6811 43- 44 GEORGEROHRBACH#6814 44-47 MACH3,LLC#6797 47-55 FRANK McGUIRE#6813 55-61 JOAN COOKE#6808 61-81 LAUREN ZAMBR'ELLI#6803 81-94 December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting HEARING#6816-55 COX NECK ROAD REALTY, LLC, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The first public hearing before the Board is for 55 COX NECK ROAD REALTY, LLC. #6816 This is a request for Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(12)for equestrian stables and riding academy, located at :55 Cox Neck Road (Sound Avenue) Mattituck, N.Y. Is someone here to represent this application? STEVE LIBRETTO : Good morning. CHAIRPERSONWEISMAN :Good morning. STEVE LIBRETTO: My name is Steve Libretto and I represent 55 Cox Neck Road Realty LLC for the application.As you know we have applied for a Special Exception Use Permit and I would like to provide the Board with some copies of some items regarding that application. Included in the application which would also provide a copy for the file are certificates of occupancy for building that exist currently on the property for use as an equestrian facility,showing that the Town has already certified those building for that use. I would also like to provide a copy for the file of a letter from Suffolk County certifying the property for inclusion and agricultural district#1 as certified October 28, 2013 as well as a letter from the County addressed to myself referencing the other letter. Finally I would like to provide the Board with a copy of the NYS Agricultural Markets guidelines for review of local laws affecting commercial horse board operations.And if there are any questions from the Board regarding the application I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are just going to make sure we get copies, Board members get copies. Alright, well,let's just a couple of facts here into the record the site is already an established equestrian site. is it 37 acres? STEVE'LIBRETTO : Yes maam. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There a couple of priors on the property#6698 Special Exception for an accessory'apartment in an accessory structure was on November 21, of 2013 and then#5894 was for horse barn with a height variance on 5/26/06.You are proposing a riding academy building that is 31 feet 2 inches to the ridge by 240 feet by 20 feet. Correct? STEVE LIBRETTO 240 feet by 120 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By 120 feet.That makes a lot more sense.That's the longest skinniest building I ever saw. Okay.The closest point to the property line is what? STEVE LIBRETTO : I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the closest point, I just want you to verify the closest point of this structure to the property line. What is the setback? STEVE LIBRETTO : I don't have the site plan in front of me.To my knowledge this application was for the use as opposed to the building, however I believe without being able to look at it right this second I December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting believe it's about 23 feet. It is within the setbacks and the Town Code setbacks for that building of that type. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you find me, it's not real clear.We have 35 we have 36 we have 37 we got 27.8 from there to there so it would appear that the closest point, 36.8 on one end and 30 that's to the Swale that's gotta be from here to here Ken. MEMBER SNEIDER :Yes that's 27.8. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the closest point.Well it is for the use but we would have had a Notice of Disaproval from the Building Department if the setback was not conforming to Code so the structure can be built as of right, it would appear and you are here for the equestrian use. STEVE LIBRETTO : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN :The access to the property includes 4 separate ingress and egress points.You now have on the property 2 barns housing horses.You have a what is a hot walker? STEVE LIBRETTO: It's a carousel an open air carousel used for the purposes of exercising horses and cooling them down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I saw that there wasn't sure what it was called.You have 2 outdoor riding rings, numerous paddocks,they all have C.O.'s. STEVE LIBRETTO :Yes ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Questions from the Board?George? MEMBER HORNING :What is the we're talking about the setbacks there,what's the approximated distance to the nearest house from the proposed riding academy building? STEVE LIBRETTO : I don't know the exact setback of the house to our property line but with 27 feet I would estimate it at approximately 140 feet. MEMBER HORNING : So the nearest house? STEVE LIBRETTO :Yes MEMBER HORNING :Approximately 140 feet. Certainly over 100 feet? STEVE LIBRETTO : I believe so. MEMBER HORNING : Okay.And you mentioned screening the possibility of screening in the application is that something that you would do on your own or you would not necessarily do it unless it was a condition? STEVE LIBRETTO : No. if it was desired to have screening of the building we have agreed to do that. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING :Well who would desire to do so? STEVE LIBRETTO : If anybody if the Board would like it, if the neighbors wanted it when 1 originally approached all the neighbors regarding this project I had said that if there was something that they didn't want to see we could screen it to help with that issue. I had offered that voluntarily. MEMBER HORNING : And the height of the building for the record. STEVE LIBRETTO :To the ridge is approximately 31 Meet. MEMBER HORNING :The use of the property as a farm how long has that been a farm? STEVE LIBRETTO : I don't know the exact term but it's been quite some time. It's been used as an equestrian facility since it was built which I believe was in on about 2006. MEMBER HORNING :Was it a farm before that? STEVE LIBRETTO : It was.It was a nursery prior. MEMBER HORNING : Number of horses approximately? STEVE LIBRETTO : We will have the capacity to house up to 34 horses. MEMBER HORNING :Okay.And you've been using it right now for approximately 8 years in the current use? STEVE LIBRETTO :The current owners purchased the property back in January of 2014 of this year. MEMBER HORNING :Okay. STEVE LIBRETTO :And it's been used as an equestrian facility for the owners up to this point from January of 2014. Prior it was used by the old owners also as an equestrian facility. I believe commercially however I don't know if that was permitted at that time by them or not but they were operating a horse boardingfacility there. MEMBER HORNING : Okay, I think you noted someplace in the application there were 4 emergency access points.Could you show those to us on the survey? STEVE LIBRETTO :Sure would you like me to come up there and point them out? MEMBER HORNING :Sure. I couldn't tell whether 3 came off of one road or STEVE LIBRETTO :Yea there are 3 off of Cox Neck Road those 3 being right there about midpoint of the property. MEMBER HORNING : Right December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting STEVE LIBRETTO :That's the first one there,that's the second,that's the third and the fourth being off of Sound Ave. All the way down and each one accesses all areas of the property. MEMBER HORNING :Another question on the survey here you mentioned a bi-weekly disposal of manure from a thirty cubic yard container.Tell us a little bit about that bi-weekly removal. STEVE LIBRETTO:We removed the container on about a bi-weekly basis every two weeks. MEMBER HORNING :Okay,thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have a copy of the memorandum we just received on December 1't from the Planning Board? STEVE LIBRETTO : No 1 do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Okay, let me make sure you get a copy for your files. I just want to enter into the record a portion of this commentary which says the 37.5 acre parcel is zoned agricultural conservation with an existing single family dwelling and an accessory horse farm.The Board is reviewing a pending site plan application proposing a horse farm as a second principal use with the indoor riding ring to provide a sheltered riding space.The acreage of the site offers ample space to accommodate the proposed agricultural use and this use is consistent with the Town Code and the Town's Comprehensive Plan. STEVE LIBRETTO :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Site plan approval is pending. is that correct? STEVE LIBRETTO :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably waiting to see what the Zoning Board does. STEVE LIBRETTO : I believe so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Eric any comments or questions? MEMBER DANTES : Do you plan on having special events on the property? STEVELIBRETTO : No.We do not.There is some interpretation left to the Town Code there's two different uses that fall into the purview of an equestrian facility one being for the keeping, breeding, raising and training of horses and it's been my impression based on the Town's interpretation that that would be for private use as opposed to stables and riding academy being the use that would be granted under Special Exception for commercial or sporting operations. It's been our intention to not have public shows or any events open to the general public.lust to have it be a private facility for use of only those people that are boarding their horses at the facility. MEMBER DANTES :That's all I have. ,, December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MEMBER WEISMAN :Okay. Ken? MEMBER SCHNEI'DER : No. I'm fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address this application? MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy I'm assisting Mr. Libretto when the owner of both who were here today by the way. I just want to make something clear to the Board.The application is for a use,for boarding use. It says equestrian stables,the stables are there.The building that we are talking about is not stables.The building we are talking about is a riding ring. It is a completely separate entity.And so this use is really a boarding use that they are asking for.And they are simply saying we have horses the horses have been there when the Bissetts owned the property.They had and I know from discussing it with them 15 horses there.They are going to keep horses there they eventually going to board horses there and that's what this is about. It's not essentially about the riding ring which is a separate application before the site, before the Planning Board. Okay just so that everybody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that should be dealt by the Planning Board as a site planning issue. MR. CUDDY :That's right.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You're welcome.Anyone else? Morning. MR. BRESSLER : My name is Eric Bressler with Wickham, Bressler, Gordon and Geasa Mattituck New York we are the attorneys for Robert M. Novarra and Denise Novarra who are neighbors with respect to this particular project.We are here today to object to the relief or in the alternative to ask that the Board impose conditions on the grant of this with respect to the grant if it's so advised of this Special Exception such that the goals of Article 25 with Special Exceptions (inaudible). I prepared for submission to the Board. By way of introduction that I think that Mr. Cuddy brought the issue into sharp focus.The application is for a Special Exception for a use which the applicant had previously taken the position didn't exist and they didn't need any relief for before the Planning Board. Now they have flip flopped and they are before this Board asking for that relief and we concur wholeheartedly that they do need relief from this Board and it was our position in front of the Planning Board that they had to come here. I think what's being lost in the presentations that have been made so far is the fact that the Special Exception request must be viewed in light of the implementation of that use.That's what code says and that's what's at issue here.We're not talking about the existing structures.We are talking about a massive building 240 feet by 120 feet. Barely more than 20 feet from my clients property line. It's over 30 feet tall It's essentially going to blot out the sun.That is what's going on here and what we are going to ask the Board to do is to condition any grant if the Board is so advised to grant relief and to protect the'Novarra's property values and the lawful enjoyment of their property.As I said before the purpose of the Special Exception is to provide for review by this Board,the Town Board has determined that December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting there are uses and I quote from the ordinance that are so likely to significantly affect the surroundings that it requires individual review.The individual review is to avoid negative consequences and that the actual form of implementation be looked at and that's what the problem here is. Let me before I go into the factors let me say that at one point I felt that there would be no need for us to even be here today, because we had discussed with the applicant and thought we had reached an agreement that this building could be moved away from the dominating position that occupies directly opposite our clients property.Move the side.There's more than sufficient room for that,to a place where people didn't have a problem.As reflected in my submission what it appeared what the Planning Board correctly required the applicant to come here today precipitously and we believe retalitorily that resolution was withdrawn and we think that that evidence is bad faith and that the Board has the power to basically reinstate that particular resolution, moving that building where it rightfully belongs. Now, in looking at the application itself to say that it's skinny grossly understates the case.There is almost nothing on the page to give the Board'any guidance about anything as to the implementation of this particular use as proposed.There'are generalized statements"well it's agricultural" and "you know we are going to raise horses" and therefore it's perfectly consistent. Well the Town Board has said no it's not.This board needs to look at each and every factor.I've set forth in my submission what those standards are. I don't need to reiterate them the Board is well aware of what they are.The Board is also aware that it can impose reasonable conditions and safeguards.So the first point is that the Novarra's property is going to be negatively impacted. Natural light, natural air and view.The building can be moved.They have 37 acres.There's more than sufficient reason for them to do it.They were going to do it and we think the Board should require them to do it. In addition to that,the placement of that particular building as we will hear in more detail from Mr. Fischetti,the placement of that particular building given the topography of the land is going to cause problems from a grading point of view to my clients property is going to cause a channeling of the water around that building which would cause a exacerbation of that draining problem and as Mr. Fischetti will tell you the submissions that were made with respects to drainage calculation is are just wrong and this Board has the power to do something to remedy that. Thus the second factor that's impacted is the safety health and welfare comforted convenience of the Town with respect to my client's property with respect to the drainage and also with respect to any fire code requirements notwithstanding the agricultural nature of the building. It is our understanding that the fire code continues to apply and that the setbacks as indicated do not provide sufficient fire access. Assuming arguendo 27 feet and substantial screening as the applicant has offered which of course we appreciate but it doesn't get me to the finish line. If you take that narrow distance and you put substantial screening in there you don't have sufficient fire access to certain (inaudible) required by the fire code so this building is got to be moved in any event.The size and visibility of the implementation of this use are grossly out of proportion with the neighborhood.Therefore, it should be moved back from the border of the property in order to minimize it's impact from a geometric standpoint. I've addressed point 4 which is the ready accessibility.The application makes a point of the fact that you can get on to the property in four different ways and that maybe so, but the issue from fire prevention which is of course is important to our client there's a building that's larger than half an acre immediately adjacent to our clients property and opposite his front yard. It doesn't address the buffer around the building that is required.And finally, as I said before we have the issue of the storm water management.And there is December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting an interesting issue that is raised with respect to storm water management.The applicant has taken the position that this is a simple disturbance of less than an acre siting the size of the building. However it should be obvious from the history of this particular project number one and number 2 the plans that the applicant has for the project that this is a segmented or creeping application which requires SPEDES permit.Certain work has been done. Certain work is going to be done and is the applicant's intention as expressed',publicly to develop this with a series of mini estates and other improvements.The sum of all the disturbed areas is plainly more than an acre and you cannot deal with storm water management in a segmented or creeping manner and this Board has the ability to address that.Turning to the environmental assessment form there are also a series of deficiencies in that submission the other approvals that are necessary are incomplete.They obviously need a building permit,you need a SPEDES permit,the area that's disturbed is going to be significantly greater as part of this segmented application.The form indicates that the proposed use as proposed to be implemented is consistent with existing development...No it's not.And I'm not saying this is necessarily fatal but no it isn't. It's almost 30,000 sq.ft.That's huge, it's one of the largest buildings in town single use and it is not consistent with what's there now.The form goes on to say there is going to be no substantial increase in traffic.Well it's very nice to assert that but there are no facts there are no figures the only thing we heard today for the first time was there are going to be 34 horses. How many people that's going to generate,what the impact of that's going to be on Cox and County Rd 48 is undetermined.There is a dearth of information that's been presentedto the Board such that the Board can reasonably determine what the impacts of this thing are going to be as proposed to be implemented.That's the key. Now we are not unmindful of the guidelines that have been handed up, but those guidelines do not give people cart blanche to do unreasonable things.This Board has the power to do what is reasonable and what is not an undue burden and we are asking the Board to please address those issues. Now in terms of what would be appropriate if the Board is inclined to permit this sort of creeping development what are we looking at? We are looking at relocation of a proposed structure, and I think with all due respect to the question that was put which is a fair question which is how far is this mammoth building going to be from the Novarra's house?That's a fair question. But it's not the only question and I don't think it's even the most important question.And that question is how many feet is going to be from their property?And Ithink the problem with asking only the one question is that it doesn't take into account the fact that although people live in that house they utilize their property. So the real measure is how far is this thing from the line and for a variety of reasons which I've gone into and I'm not going to reiterate 27 feet isn't going to be (inaudible) it's just not gonna make it. So when you say 100 feet well you know maybe that's right but maybe that measure should be measured from a different point the property line and not the. house. MEMBER DANTES : Can I jump in with a question. What in your original agreement that you talked about or mentioned how many feet were they going to originally gonna put the building on. MR. BRESSLER :The building was going to be moved entirely to the side such that none of it was going to be in front of our property going to move it off to that side. MEMBER DANTES : How many feet was that approximately? 1 >l December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MR. BRESSLER : If you look at your survey it's scaled at it basically would of meant the back portion of the building is in front of the Novarra's property. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Could you show us where you are referring to. MR. BRESSLER :Yea,abosolutely thank you. Okay yea here the Navarra's are over here as you know and the proposal we of course we never really flushed out exactly where it was going to go but the proposal was to move it such that none of this was going to be in front of this.So it's going to go generally over there so spelling this out this is 240 feet you can see that it would be roughly half that distance moving it away to an area where people had raised no objection for whatever reasons they may have location of their houses,their views,whatever.There's more than sufficient room to move this around without much difficulty.You see actually looking at this survey you see it shows screening and I think this demonstrates the point I was making about the fire access around the building. It's just not going to it's just not going to happen.So the answer to your question is roughly half and over to the side which eliminates a lot issues but it doesn't eliminate all of them because you still have that drainage issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait we have new recording equipment.Would you please go back to the mic so we can make sure. MR. BRESSLER : Yea sure. It doesn't eliminate the drainage issue and the reason why it doesn't eliminate issue is because even if you align that side of the building with our property line the natural flow of the water as Mr. Fischetti will tell you is going to be around that building and its going to be channeled down there so what needs to be done is a calculation to deal with the water consequences arising from the construction of the building not just the footprint where the water is going to runoff the roof.The Board is very familiar with the fact that putting buildings up has consequences with respect to water flow under(inaudible)that generated immediately off the roof.So CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask a question at this point if I might. MR. BRESSLER :Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It sounds to me and I'm going to say what I think I'm hearing so please correct me if I'm not correct. It sounds to me as though there is not an objection to an equestrian use on the property but rather the location of the large building as proposed on the property. MR. BRESSLER :That is correct subject of course to whatever else the Board may find out about this. I don't know what the traffic impacts are going to be. Nobody has told us.They are going to board 34 horses, I don't know what that generates but in general (inaudible) I would say that if so the general subject of drainage and traffic and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What those issues that you raise certainly valid issues are generally things that the Building Department and Planning Board address in site plan approval and in construction and the Town Engineer with regard to Chapter 236 the town drainage code. We can address it only in so far as it has potential adverse impacts on the health safety and welfare of the community. Remember this is a permitted use with a historic standing on the property and what is really before us is not a building �h i December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting that's being proposed.That may or may not, if it were not possible to do it as of right the building department would then have to issue a notice of disapproval.The Town Engineer would have to respond to problems with onsite drainage.The traffic impacts of parking and so on are all site plan related.So I seethe point you are trying to make which is to look at the ways those may affect the standards that we have to address in the Special Exception use section of the Code. MR. BRESSLER : I think that's where we disagree a little bit. I think that in your enabling ordinance there is a specific reference to the actual form of implementation that needs to be reviewed.So to say that cosmically we have no objection to a use overstates the case.We have an objection to the implementation of the use as proposed in this application and while you have correctly sited factor B in 280-142 factor A is the reasonable use of adjacent properties so that it's not only the welfare of the Town in general it is the welfare and the use of the adjacent property. So I think for you to say that those are issues before those Boards is certainly so. I don't disagree with that where but I think we diverge is that if the implementation is that you cannot or should not address those factors we disagree on that I think that the Board has the power and I think the Board should exercise that power.That's why they came to you for a Special Exception. If the question were you know well cosmically speaking is a riding academy use going to be okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please talk into the mic we have new equipment. MR. BRESSLER : In the zones you know that's one thing but I don't believe that that's what before you and I think you can reach out and grab this application and attach to it what needs to be done in order to insure that not only the community but our clients in particular get the protection that they need and basically the applicant should adhere to that which they the preliminarily or I thought finally agreed to in terms of doing this and l think that that would I think that would go a long way towards taking care of this problem. If the Board has any question of me at this point I will I'm happy to entertain them if you want to hold them l would like Mr. Fischetti to speak just briefly to factor G on the application which deals with the drainage pains me to say so but he is more knowledgeable than I am in terms of drainage issues. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board have any questions for Mr. Bressler? MR. BRESSLER You have Mr. Fischetti's document which is an attachment A to my submission attachment B is what I submitted to the Planning Board. I guess that's why we are here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I do have some questions for Mr. Bressler but I can hold up for those you know. MR. BRESSLER : Now or later? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I think will wait till later. MR. FISCHETTI : Good morning Board.Joseph Fischetti. I am a professional engineer. I was hired last week by Mr. Novarra to take a look at drainage.This has this property as part of my report if you had a chance to look at it, majority of the drainage on this property runs into two natural ponds.The area where this arena is going to be built presently is approximately so this property as you can see from the December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting site plan has been built upon especially this section of approximately 8%2 acres.That 8% acres does not drain internally it drains to the north. I've given you a USGS map from 1956 and it shows that this property drains to the north it has historically drained to that area.You can see a little bit of a on that USGS map you will see a couple of swiggles which actually those show up on Young&Youngs topographic map which shows a swale of right on the edge of my client's property.So this property drains in that direction. Because it's been incrementally developed that section of with many many pieces of property all that's been taken care of is roof drains. None of the site drainage that runs over land over lawns has been taken care of.There is it has been taken care of in this application because it's required now.But prior only roof drains.There is no drainage in that 8%Z acres for taking any of the lawn area or taking care of that.That's almost so what I did was I did a calculation in here for the actual amount of water that is running over Mr. Novarra's property and the property the area in question is 366,000 square feet and as you know what we do is we calculate 2 inch rainfall.Now a 2 inch rainfall is really isnot a it's not a it's a quantity that must be contained. It's a compromise of many rainfalls are much larger that so even if you if you contain a 2 inch rainfall there are many times when more than that amount will be this larger amount of rainfall. Anyway for the amount of lawn area that's in here that's not being contained we have almost 93,700 cubic feet of lawn cubic feet of water that's running over his property. If anybody has gone over there during a heavy rain you can see how much water runs down to that property.The little the drawing I did from Young&Youngs drawing which shows arrows shows that this building is actually in the drainage area. It is in the direction of the flow. It is changed the direction of flow of the water that's in here. It is in the low point of the property which is where recharge basin should be placed. If they do move that property to the left that would be actually a good area to put a recharge basin to pick up this water. But right now no one has picked up the amount of water that is running over land.All that's happened here is the other buildings that are there if you see on the site plan there is roof drains,they are only picking up roof drains. So it is imperative that this Board understand that this is a problem.That there's almost actually 700,000 gallons of water in a 2 inch rainfall that will go over Mr. Novarra's property.Actually that's about you guys have backwashed your swimming pools or emptied your swimming pools,that's 38 standard swimming pools in a rainfall that goes over his property.You have to understand that no one is going to take care of this. It hasn't been looked at by the Town Engineer because the calculations are being done according to Town standards because he's only taking what is disturbed for that building. It is only this Board that is going to look at the problem of the neighbors. It is this Board that has to look at that problem.This water has to be contained by this project. By you granting that use you're granting all the other uses of all the other buildings in that section. So you have to take care of all the water in that section when you grant that use. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : May I ask a question? MR. FISCHETTI : Drainage is a problem.You have to MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Are you thinking about something like a French drain around the building dumping into a huge December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MR. FISCHETTI : No,you they I haven't I've only been looking at this for the last week. No. If it was me I would probably use a small recharge basin.You have to first address the problem say yes this water is running over the top it is a 2 inch rainfall that you multiply by the area of the lawn by the constant. Now understand lawn constant is one tenth less than the roof. So usually use a constant of.1 or.2 but no one has done that here and it's not been done with the other buildings that it's been done. It's really important to do that.So if you move that building which one thing it does is it allows you to put recharge or maybe a swale to contain this water in that low point which would be perfect,good engineering to do that. Putting the building in the low point is wrong.You have no way to handle the water but it has the water has to be handled. Either you have to tell you have to tell the engineer in our Town or tell the Planning Board that water is a problem here.Water is running over the adjacent property and the engineer this has to be contained part of your determination should be somebody has to contain this water.That's part of that MEMBER DANTES : Do you have any pictures of the water running over the property line? MR. FISCHETTI I know that Mr. Novarra had some. I've asked him, I've said have you taken pictures. But that doesn't matter.The pictures, it goes there. Engineering wise take a look at my drawing it goes there.Take a look at my calculations that's the amount of water that goes on when you design a 2 inch rainfall. MEMBER RANTES :No I understand that but I mean things being drawn out on paper in reality aren't always the same thing cause it would be nine to see the real physical evidence. MR. FISCHETTI :You can do physical evidence but you have to understand in our Town you have a regulation that says the water must be contained on your property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That is a perfectly reasonable and legally responsible thing to condition any kind of relief on.We automatically do it with variance relief. MR. FISCHETTI : Good CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The applicant has to comply with the Town's drainage code. It's that simple because otherwise it would be adverse environmental impact. MR. FISCHETTI : But the difference here is the applicant is only saying "Well I'm only disturbing the little area aroundmy arena." But he has over the years disturbed that whole 8%acres and that whole 8 acres is now going to my client's property. So this Board has to look at the bigger picture when you give them that use that says I'm going to take care of that whole 8%2 acres not just what's around my property that's just what's disturbed.That's the problem here. It's being done incrementally and no one is looking at the bigger picture.This Board has to look at the bigger picture. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok thank you. Anyone else in the audience. Hold on one second you need to state your name for the record. MR. BEHMORIAM : My name is Richard Behmoriam I'm one of the owners of the property. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Would you spell your last name for us please. MR. BEHMORIAM : Sure BEHMOIRAM. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. MR. BEHMORIAM : I just happen to be in the drainage business. I've put drainage in for a living and Mr. Fischetti's description of the drainage and the issue all sounds lovely but to describe 700,000 gallons of water running into Mr. Novarra's property everytime it rains I don't think Mr. Novarra would have a home if you thought about 7 swimming pools running past his property everytime that 2 inches of water came down.We spent extensive time with Young&Youngs going over the calculations. We were asked by the Planning Board to put in some additional drainage which would help control some of the water that possibly'could go around the building which we agreed to,which you will see on the site plan. It was given to the Town Engineer and to the best of our knowledge was approved by them as far as being ample to contain the 2 inch rainfall which is code. Okay so I don't know if drainage has anything to do with our particular application but just to enlighten the Board as to what we have done to try to address everyone's concerns I thought I would bring it to your attention.That's all I have to say. MEMBER WEISMAN :Thank you. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask him a question? Mr.their attorney asked mentioned that you made an agreement with them about moving the academy MR. BEHMORIAM : I didn't make no such agreement but we can certainly discuss that somebody else from our organization can talk about it. Okay. MEMBER DANTES : Okay MR. CUDDY : We appreciate the Board taking as much time and allowing us to respond. I just want to respond briefly,Mr. Libretto will respond more in kind but I'm very concerned about this question about the building.The building is okay if it's moved which is interesting to me. It's not the building itself it's just where it's located. I would point out to the Board that this is 2 acre zoned.Two acre zone, if we subdivided these lots,we could have a 16,000 square foot house 100 by 60 right where we're putting this building.We could do that, it could be two stories high and it would have the same effect.But I'm troubled by the fact that we're now seeming to massage the facts to fit Mr. Bressler's concept of the law. We are here for a simple application to board horses in existing stables and that's basically what this is about. I'm surprised that we've gone off tremendously on something I don't think is really pertinent to the application but if it was,the same building could have been put in the same place and if that's meaningful then I think the Board should be aware of it. Mr. Libretto wants to respond also. MR. LIBRETTO : Again my name is Steve Libretto representing 55 Cox Neck Rd Realty. I would like the opportunity to address just a few points that Mr. Bressler brought up.Starting with the fact that we had gone to Planning first. It was the intention of the owners to go to Planning,to construct the building for their own use for their private use at this time and with future plans of opening and operating a commercial horse boarding facility. As such we went Planning first with the assumption that the building 141 December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting was going to be used only for their use for the time being and at such time we would of approached the Board and submitted the application that is now currently in front of you. However,going through the Planning process the Planning Board felt that given the fact that there was some contention and our plans were to in the future open up a commercial horse boarding operation they felt it was best suited to have us come before you. So that's why we went Planning first and now we are to you with Zoning as opposed to doing it concurrently because originally the timeline was to construct a building for the owner's private use then to move forward as a commercial boarding facility in the future.With that being said there were some brief conversations with regard to the location of the building.There were discussions that were had between our attorney and their attorney regarding the location of the building and the possibility of moving it. It was considered for a short time given the fact that the owners did desire to use this building for their private use this winter.They purchased the property last January,got things up and running to have their horses there.They now have their horses there on the property.They wanted to get the building up to be able to use it this winter. In consideration of the fact that moving the building might have allowed that to happen we were willing to consider it and make concessions to be able to use it this winter. Now that that is not possible, inclement weather is upon us, it's not safe to have crews building a building right now a steel building in addition to the fact that by the time it would get built if we were to be magically be granted permission to build the building today by the time it got built we would be the end of the winter they would have lost this season. Given the fact that they were going to lose this season and now have had to spend money to trailer the horses to other facilities and pay to use those facilities in addition to the fact that extra expenses would have been incurred to relocate existing paddocks that are there right now to move the building to another location. It's been determined that since we had to delay the process we will no longer get the use,their own private use this winter. We decided that we would go back to putting it where it is best served in the original location that it was planned.So that's to address Mr. Dantes the question as far as that. As far as drainage Mr. Behmoraim addressed the Board given the fact that he is in that business but I would also like to add that I do agree with Mr. Fischetti that currently the water does drain to the northeast corner of that property. I would also agree that in constructing a building it will change the flow to an extent. However, I believe that the change in that flow will be that we are now collecting 28,800 square feet of rainfall and putting into storm water basins as per the drainage plan that has been approved by the Town Engineer as opposed to if nothing is done and we do not construct this building.The water will continue to just drain where it is. Now we are going to be collecting a large portion of that water.The Planning Board did ask given that there are drainage concerns that we consider adding additional drainage and a swale to catch and collect some water putting it in another storm water basin in addition to the roof and we have agreed to that and an amended site plan has been provided to the Planning Board which you have a copy of.That was done prior to our submission of the application for Special Exception.As to fire access I will inform the Board that I do have some experience with that. I am an ex- chief of the Mattituck Fire Department and a current member of Mattituck Fire Department. As such I know what kind of access is needed to fight fires and to suppress fires in any kind of building and the access we currently have to the property will be more than sufficient.The fact of the location of the building will not affect that whatsoever. As to the view, the building will be put within the view of Mr. Novarra and other neighbors. We don't dispute that. However it the property has a use that's for an December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting equestrian purposes right now.We continue to use it for equestrian purposes. Again to reiterate that the building construction is not the application that's at hand however, given that it has been brought up we do understand that this will be viewable from many different adjacent properties.The current view right now that they have,the building will be blockedlargely by existing foliage and trees. I have a picture that I would like to submit to the Board.Actually 2 pictures that I took from approximately 36 feet in height on a Lift located in the center of where this building will be that shows what the view is of their house currently.So I will submit that. I do only have one copy I can absolutely print more.There's two different pictures. One is a panoramic one is just a single photo that the Board can look at.This is the view of the Novarra's house from the proposed location of the building. MEMBER HORNING :At a height of 36 feet? MR. LIBRETTO :Yes that's right. I also do recognize the fact that there are times of year that that foliage will not exist. However,those times of year the light of day is also less.So in the evenings at 5 o'clock when everybody is home enjoying their houses it's going to be dark anyway and the building will be less viewable.As far as the distance to the property line Mr. Bressler brought up that the distance to the actual property line needs to be viewed. I do somewhat disagree with that given the fact that property lines exist to determine where somebody's property ends and where somebody's elses begin. But the current property line for Mr. Novarra's property includes an easement for other properties that are in that area so it's not something that's a lawn that would be usable with a picnic table sitting out enjoying coffee or anything else for that matter. I think the question that was asked before what's the distance between the building and the house was more appropriate and that is obviously a greater distance and that's all I have unless the Board has any other questions for me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anybody else? MR.BRESSLER :You said that there is an easement between your property and the Novarra's? MR. LIBRETTO: Correct. MEMBER WEISMAN :You can see it on site inspection. It's there.The dwelling is on the far side of the access easement to the property.Then there is a bit of a berm going up from there that's depressed. So that property,the residential property is somewhat lower than the property of the subject property. MR. LIBRETTO :That's correct. MEMBER WEISMAN : Having said that it is reasonable to assume that the consequence for the neighbor is that the height of the building would appear even greater because the property is higher so that's something to consider. How do you respond with the notion of proposed screening within that 27 foot setback with regard to drainage and with regard to fire safety? MR. LIBRETTO : As far MEMBER WEISMAN : If you were to screen as proposed within that swale area? December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MR. LIBRETTO :The screening would be done on the north side of the property between the existing fence and the property line.To screen somewhat the view that the Novarra's have in addition to the natural screening that exists. MEMBER WEISMAN : Is the property line was hard to tell in the field exactly where it was I'd know where the fence is located. Is the property line on the far side or on the MR. LIBRETTO:The property line is approximately 15 feet north of the fence that you would of seen on the site inspection. MEMBER WEISMAN :Okay that helps, I wasn't sure how to figure out MR. LIBRETTO : Yea the property line is a bit further. MEMBER WEISMAN : So you would be screening along the opposite side of the fenced area? MR. LIBRETTO : Correct. MEMBER WEISMAN : Probably in between where the existing deciduous trees are. MR. LIBRETTO :Correct. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask a question Leslie? If you look at the packet that Mr. Bressler handed us, he gives us a series of advertisements. MR. LIBRETTO :Yes MEMBER DANTES Can you give us a brief overview of those? MR. LIBRETTO :Sure.We had done ads in anticipation of in the future operating a commercial boarding facility.We felt that it was reasonable to there's obviously been some money spent in cleaning up the existing property and there will be monies spent to further develop the property.That being said, it is a significant investment and the ads were run to generate interest to collect and kind of research what kind of interest there would be prior to determining of budget for what was going to be spent.We don't want to overspend and not have there be a great draw for this type of property.So we wanted to get a sense and get some feedback from some people who have horses and clients to see what their interests might be in bringing their horses to a facility like this.And specifically there was an ad that was run with a young girl riding and it was brought to the I believe the Planning Boards attention by Mr. Bressler that he felt that that was proof that we were currently boarding.That happens to be one of the owner's daughters. It was not an ad or a picture showing other people coming to pay for lessons. It was one of the owner's daughters riding and getting lessons. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's try in the interest of time I want to see if there is anyone else in the audience who also wants to address this application so Board members please direct whatever questions you have to whoever you which have December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : I want to ask about a couple of things in the application before us for a Special Exception describes use as stables and riding academy. Mr. Cuddy was talking about boarding use. What is the uses of riding academy? MR LIBRETTO :Well the unfortunately the Town Code does not separate the use of stables and riding academy.'It's all one Code. MEMBER HORNING :Yes MR. LIBRETTO : So it's been interpreted by the Town,The Planning Board,The Zoning Board that in order for us to operate a commercial horse boarding facility we would need that Special Exception for stables and riding academy. If it was separated we would only be before you for stables. We do not have any intention nor desire to operate a riding academy.The difference being that a riding academy is something that would be open to the general public and the State Ag and Markets guidelines do somewhat define the difference open to the general public as opposed to only those that are paying for their horses to be boarded.So we it is not our desire now nor will it be in the future to operate a riding academy where the general public would be welcomed to come pay for lessons. It is strictly going to be used for those that board their horses on the property. MEMBER WEISMAN :Are you currently boarding any horses that are not owned by the owners? MR. LIBRETTO : No we currently have the owner's horses just friends and family.That's it. Nobody is we are not being compensated for any board at this time. MEMBER WEISMAN :Ok and no one is coming in from outside that to ride. MR. LIBRETTO : No MEMBER HORNING : Related question regarding this proposed building is that part of your proposed use as stables? MR. LIBRETTO :Yes.Yes. Part of I am not a horse expert but I can answer that to the best of my ability would be the part of a an equestrian facility for hunter jumper horses and riding would include jumping rings,jumps, riding horses,exercising them regularly.So this building would be for that use in the off season so to speak during inclement weather. MEMBER HORNING :The horses would not reside in there so to speak at night. MR. LIBRETTO : No.The horses MEMBER HORNING :stables so you would think as stables MR. LIBRETTO :That's correct.The stables are existing on the property.The horses reside in those two barns that house those stables.This building would strictly be used for the purposes of riding. For people to ride their horses. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : But that's not a riding academy? MR. LIBRETTO : Correct. MEMBER HORNING Regards to lighting of that building for that use what kind of lighting are you actually proposing exterior lighting? MR. LIBRETTO :There will be very limited exterior lighting only what's required by Town Code for entry and exit doors.There will be no lighting to light up an outside area to enable them to ride outside the building at night.The any riding would be done inside the building and there will be lighting inside the building for that purpose. MEMBER HORNING :So you're not going to have exterior lighting,flood lights and things like that. MR. LIBRETTO : No.Only that that's required by Code for lighting entries and exits. MEMBER HORNING :Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :The last question I have is you mentioned that the building is primarily steel is there any part of the building that you would be aware of that would be wood and I'll answer the question based upon some of the history that I have regarding this my prior job some of these buildings have viewing areas and the viewing areas were made out of wood. Would that possibly be the case here or will the building be primarily of steel? MR. LIBRETTO No the building will be almost entirely of steel..The only wood that would be in the building and I don't know the term to describe it but the let's say the lower 4 feet on the interior of the building for the purposes of if somebody was to be thrown off of a horse, rather than hitting the steel there's a slightly angled wall that's put up about 4 feet high let's say it's about 16 to 18 inches off of the steel at the bottom and up about 4 feet it's about 4 inches so it would be angled like this if this were the outside wall of the building just for the purpose of softening a fall off the horse.That would be the only wood that would be in the building. MEMBER GEOHRINGER :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application?Go to the mic and state your name. MR. NOVARRA: Hi my name is Robert Michael Novarra. I'm the owner one of the owners of the property that is directly to the north of this proposed building. I'll start off by saying I don't think that this property or where this building is going to be is going to be much more than 100 feet from the front of our house. Mr. Libretto always doesn't seem to know an exact amount because he probably doesn't want to let people know actually how close it is to our house.This is going to have a complete negative impact on our property.Yea that picture was taken of the trees in the summer time but a lot of light shines through.There's other areas that are not so thick and dense with the trees there. We presently get large amounts of light pollution form their existing barns and it's not exterior lights it's interior lights. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting Lights from the inside and that's one of our big concerns that this building that they are proposing is going to be have windows all the way around it and our concern is the lights form the inside shining on to our property.As I said right now at night time our house is lit up just from the interior lights at their existing barns which are probably well over 300 feet away from our house. Um light pollution is a big concern we are going to lose our south view and the big thing is you know this is going to be have a devastating effect on our property value of our house. It really is and I really feel like this was rushed through and the proper measures weren't taken to actually give a permit for this building. I think it needs to be reviewed, it needs to be moved you know and I'm hoping that you folks take the right steps and propose that this building get moved to a different location. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Are you suggesting so that you according to your calculations you're estimating that the proposed location for this building is about 100 feet from your house? MR. NOVARRA:Yes.Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. Anyone else in the audience? MR. BRESSLER :Yes I'd just like to respond very briefly and I think take member Goehringer's question which he's been holding in abeyance um I'd like to respond briefly just to a couple of the comments that were made. Mr. Cuddy has indicated that you know if this building is not placed where it's placed and that someone would have an ability to place a 16,000 square foot house there as of right well the simple math shows that 16 is not 28.The house would be roughly half the size of this proposed building so I don't think that that I don't think that that's a fair comment you know to say that it gets dark and people can't enjoy their yards I think is really disingenuous doesn't take into account weekends or vacations or anything else and whether there's an easement or not that's completely irrelevant.We have the use of that property and our clients and our clients do use it. But what's of greater concern here is the constant backing away and the minimization of this project of this project.We're not going to do this and it's really that and it's really only this and it's not a riding academy. Well yea it is. People come there and if the applicant is to be believed it's only the people that board their horses there but those people get instruction.The advertisements show it.Their looking to hire instructors. It is a riding academy.That's why they're here before you. It's not because it says stables and riding academies.Those two are not inextricably intertwined in the Code. It's stables and riding academies. It's two different things and they're before you asking for both. it is a riding academy. People are going to be instructed there.That is the point.You don't come and get your horse and ride it around totally without instruction and I think there's a false distinction that's being made between you know somebody comes in and says I want to ride a horse for an hour. Well okay maybe they're not going to let people come in and ride a horse for an hour unless you board there. But it is a full service facility.That's what it is.You board your horse there,you pay your money,you get instruction there,your ride there and it's the implementation of this particular application that is at issue here. It's massive. It can be moved to a better location to minimize the impact. I think the applicant's explanation was transparent and speaks for itself.They did agree and then when they found out that they were going to have to come here as they should have done in the first instance they said Nah were not going to do that anymore.They have the ability to do it,they can do it,they should be required to do it. Member Goehringer do you have a question for me? December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MEMBER'GOEHRINGER :Well really it was for Mr. Fischetti. MR.'BRESSLER: Oh. MEMBER'GOEHRINGER : Based upon some of the questions that(in audible)the question I have is this issue of drainage and how you perceive it in reference to the proposed placement of the building. Is there a greater need to move the building farther away from the property line or main reasons 1. Drainage.,2. Whatever access may be required around the building after the plantings are done. And the reason why I ask you this question is because you've been before us many many times and you are a civil engineer, I just wanted your opinion. MR. FISCHETTI If you're going to acknowledge that there's a drainage problem and there is Mr. Novarra has photos of the water coming on his property.And if the proper handling of this water has to be more that what has been proposed by Young&Young right now,cause all they're doing is containing the water in the building and containing the disturbance area. If we contain the rest of the development which is actually happening and every time you put in a hard impervious surface over lawn that's ten times more drainage cause it's ten times more drainage because of the calculations that's required. But so if there is a need to contain this additional drainage that it's not impacting Mr. Novarra you can't put a building at the low point because that's where the drainage has to go.So if this building was moved we would have that area to either put a retention basin which is very easy to door additional drainage it's at the low point. It makes it it's better engineering to use that low area for the drainage problem. Very simple. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Very good.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright, is there anyone else cause I really want to move this along. It's not fair to other applicants that we're not going to close this hearing today anyway. MRS. N'OVARRA : Okay My name is Denise Novarra and I just want to quickly state of course I don't enjoy doing this but I would be a fool not to speak up for myself today in trying to protect my property value. It just seems to me you know that this is an industrial size building which is going to be yep very close to my house and it will block out the entire view of the front of my house which is also going to affect my well being.Just the loss of the natural light.That's all I just wanted to say today.That's my main concern. MR. BRESSLER: Madam chairwoman. Oh I'm sorry go ahead. MRS. NOVARRA: I also wanted to add as Mr. Dantes said before that reality is different from what you see on paper you know I welcome everybody and you can come to my house.You can sit in my living room, my front porch and you will be able to realize that the proportion because of the sloped of the property is just going to be overwhelming for me.That's all. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Did you want to say something Mr. Novarra?Alright fine. Okay. Mr. Bressler. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MR. BRESSLER : Did I understand you to comment on the status of the hearing because we wanted to submit those photographs.You said the hearing is being kept open? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes. I'm going to propose that to the Board. MR. BRESSLER : Oh Okay, hasn't been voted on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Haven't been voted on.That's right. We do have the Democratic process to follow. MR.LIBRETTO : I will make this very brief. I just want to answer to Mr. Bressler's points about the riding academy. State AG and Markets very clearly defines the difference between commercial boarding operation and that of the use of those people who board their horses as opposed to a riding academy that's open to the general public and just to reiterate our position would be that we would not be looking to now or in the future be a riding academy.We would be happy to respond to any conditions that were placed on the board to that affect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The application before the Board is for equestrian stables and riding academy for this Special Exception. Okay,that's how the Code is not separating those two. MR. LIBRETTO : Correct. Right the Southold Town Code does not separate the two so we had no choice but to apply for that Special Exception Use. But we are willing to waive our right to having any kind of riding academy general public events there whatsoever. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you very much. MEMBER HORNING : I have one quick question again. On the proposed building which will be included in this proposed Special Exception use lighting interior,we have no idea of windows for this building and tell us quickly what windows will be facing the neighborhood and also I have a question could one of the applicants potential clients come there at 9 or 10 o'clock at night turn on the lights interior lights of this building and ride their horse?What are the hours of operation? MR. LIBRETTO :Since it's not up and running yet we don't have defined hours of operation but to answer your question no they would not be able to just come whenever they wanted or at 10 o'clock at night and turn the lights on and ride their horse.There will be defined hours that will be very reasonable given adjacent uses and what not.And as to the location of windows there will be windows on all sides of the building because we want to be able to open them up during warmer months when the building is still being used be able to get some fresh air going through there.And it was not included not at all in an attempt to be transparent but because the application is for the use and not for the building. We do have another application with the Planning Board related to the building. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It is my understanding and this is the last question again that this is a secured facility.A secure facility is one that is fenced you have to be let in basically okay. Is it going to stay that way? December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MR. LIBRETTO :Yes it is. In fact we are the gate that most of you may have used visit the site we will be putting agate opener with specific codes that are only available to those that board their horses there. And the owners of the property obviously. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe we have taken in a great deal of information and MR. NOVARRA My name is Robert Michael Novarra again. When Mr. Libretto showed us a picture of proposedbuilding the outside of this building is completely surrounded by windows so it's going to have a continuous window all around this whole building so it's not like they are going to have a window here and a window there,it's going to be windows all the way around this building from what we saw on the picture that was handed to us from Mr. Libretto. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I'm going to ask for a couple of things here I think and see what the Board has to say about it. I'm going to first of all suggest that we adjourn this to the Special Meeting.We will then have an opportunity to discuss it further and see whether or not an additional hearing is necessary or whether we can just simply close this hearing that will be in 2 weeks from today on December 18th. Now the public is more than welcome to sit with us when we discuss the matter. It's an open noticed meeting.We will not be taking testimony from anyone at that time however. I would like to ask the neighbor to submit photographs of water as which they wanted to do on their property and I would like to ask the applicant to please submit a copy of the proposed building plans as well. Okay. Is there anything else from the Board? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'd like the Town Engineer which is supposedly this is not a sarcastic statement who reviewed these calculations of water to maybe come to the Special Meeting or to at least give us a letter saying he feels that the calculations are appropriate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can either we will ask for written comments and if that is not sufficient then we will ask him to appear but I think probably in the interests if we need testimony from him then I think we are going to need to have it at another hearing where the applicant will have the opportunity to respond publicly in the record. Hopefully we won't need another hearing but that remains to be seen. We need to look at the plans, look at your photographs, review all or read everything that was just submitted you know carefully so that we can weigh all of the information properly and fairly. Anything else from the Board?Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on December 18tH MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That will be all in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER :Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER HORNING :Aye. � l December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That will take place beginning at 5,we usually have some various work to do work session and so on prior to deliberating but we will put that on for possible resolution first on the agenda and so it will be close to 5 and we will meanwhile expect to have submitted to our office the building plans that you have and the photographs of and any other documentation that you wish to submit is fine because the hearing is open. So we can accept any additional information you wish to submit.Thank you very much.That takes care of that. HEARING#6810-CAPT. RED'S MARINE SALES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Capt. Red's Marine in Mattituck. We have a request however on this application from the applicant/owner Michael Hughes to adjourn this hearing without a date so that he may proceed with the Planning Board.So having received this written request I'm going to make a motion to adjourn application#6810 without a date. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER HORNING :Aye MEMBER RANTES : Aye (See Minutes for Resolution.) MEMBER GOEHRINGER :As you know I abstain from that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you hear that Gerry abstained from, he's recusing himself from this application. HEARING#6815—RICHARD and BOBETTE SUTER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Next application before the Board is for Richard and Bobetter Suter#6815. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 27, 2014 Notice of Disaproval based on an application for building permit for additions and alterations to an existing seasonal single family dwelling, at; 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet, located at 855 Fisherman's Beach Road (aka Haywaters Road)(adj.to Cutchogue Harbor) Cutchogue, N.Y.SCTM#1000-111-1-30. Is there someone here to represent the application? MR. SUTER : Yea I am. Rick Suter one of the owners. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you have some green cards. MR.SUTER :Yes. As you know or may not know Fisherman's Beach is a private road so the one lane of gravel built probably in the 1930's this house was actually built also in the late 30's.There was a previous variance which I think you may have noticed in 1967,that was just for a lot line modification which actually made the lot a little wider but didn't help for the front yard.The original house is built one foot from the street or one foot from the property line.The entire existing house is in the 40 foot setback. I have a highlighted survey which you can see here. So what it really means is that if we do any kind of alteration work on this house we have to come in front of your Board which I guess is something new because we bought the house in 1997 and we raised the house in 2001. We raised it 5 feet and we also did a small addition and we didn't come in front of the Board at that time.So something's changed between 2001 and 2014,the Building Inspector now denied us even though we are actually adding towards the back of the house which is further away from the street so we had to come anyway cause we are only 22 feet from the street. We actually can't even touch the house so I will show you a little survey. I highlighted the 40 foot setback here and you'll see the entire house is in the 40 foot setback and that hatched area is the porch we are proposing.The roofing over an existing deck which is the existing footprint. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just so you are aware all of the Board members have done personal inspections of this site so we visually know exactly MR. SUTER : Ok.We had a tent over that area of the deck for the last five summers.The tent obviously has restriction of the water getting in from the sides and the thing is still very wet underneath so we're looking to have something that is a little more water tight. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the proposed I don't know that we necessarily had the any drawings that show the actual proposed height of the proposed porch. Is that similar to what the existing MR. SUTER :Yes it's no taller than the existing house.The ridge in fact I have a drawing here CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :What is the height of the ridge. MR.SUTER : Say again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Height to the ridge. MR.SUTER : 21.5 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. MR. SUTER :The existing house is also 21.5 feet total. One and a half story cape. Did you want me to submit that drawing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Sure if you have it. MR. SUTER : Yea I have it here.This is the proposed porch that's the existing ridge of the house. 25 1 December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER :So that's looking from the rear? MR.SUTER :This is looking from the bay yes. What you see from the street is only actually a little tiny triangle. It's all you are going to be able to see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well, Mr. Suter this is really a technical variance, what we often call a technical variance. I totally understand what you're talking about. I think the Board recognizes you can't really legally do anything on that property because none of it is conforming. MR.SUTER :Well it's preexisting non-conforming the entire structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know why you weren't here previously frankly. But the point is this is really amore of a technicality more than anything else as far as I can ascertain. I don't see any visual impact on adjacent properties. It's there, it's surrounded by house on all sides. It's kind of an internal thing. So I guess it's because you're increasing the degree of non-conformance by closing the deck. Any questions from the Board? MEMBER HORNING : I have one question on the submitted reasons for the appeal#5 reason as to has difficulty been self-created built prior to 1930 etc. It says was built only 1.5 feet from the property line. Is that correct? MR.SUTER : It actually it's one foot from the property line. It's exact that correct.The existing house yes. MEMBER HORNING :And that's shown on the survey that you just submitted to us. MR. SUTER : Yes,yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is filled in with yellow magic marker just showing entire house basically sitting within that 40 foot MEMBER HORNING : Right I mean I couldn't find in what we had previously in the file I couldn't find that 1.5 foot mark. MR. SUTER : Do you have a survey there I could show it to you. MEMBER HORNING :Well this is what we did have. MR.SUTER : Yea that was probably a site plan which just showed a proposal it didn't have the exact dimension. MEMBER HORNING :You just gave us this. MR. SUTER :Yea that's the exact dimension. MEMBER HORNING : We didn't have your survey until h December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anyone in the audience wished to address this application? No further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserving decision to later date. Anyone second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER HORNING :Aye MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye (See minutes for Resolution.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you very much. MR.SUTER :Thank you. When will that be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Will be deliberating on a draft decision two weeks from today in the Town Hall Annex Building Department Conference Room starting at 5 o'clock.You're welcome to attend if you like.You don't have to there will be no testimony taken but you can observe our discussion and you can also call the next day call on Friday and Vicki will tell you what the decision was.You will be mailed a copy. MR. SUTER : Okay,thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. HEARING #6809 - JAMES KNOBLOCH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for James Knobloch#6809.This is a request for Variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 4, 2014 Notice of Disaproval based on an application for building permit an "as built" deck addition to an existing single family dwelling at; 1) less than the code required single side yard setback of 10 feet, located at 795 Bayview Drive East Marion, NY. SCTM# 1000-37-1-19. Is there someone here to represent the application. Please come to the microphone and state your name please. MR. KNOBLOCH : My name is Michael Knobloch. I'm co-owner with my brother James Knobloch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any green cards for us?Thank you. MR. KNOBLOCH : I also have some pictures. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok thank you. Oh yes yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Can I ask you a question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on one second. Let's see what he has to tell us. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just want to know the square footage of the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, can you tell us what that square footage is. MR. KNOBLOCH : I believe it's approximately, I don't have the exact measurements but I believe it's 19 feet by 11 or 19 by 15 and it's on an angle. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Yea that's why I asked the question. MR. KNOBLOCH :Yea we got two corners so it's not actually 19 by 20 squared actually it goes from one corner of the house to the other kind of like a little CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Sort of triangular shape. Now we've all been there we've seen. MR. KNOBLOCH :It's right off the kitchen door there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN ; How long has the deck been there? MR. KNOBLOCH : Built I want to say in April or May. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's recent. MR. KNOBLOCH :Yes recent and it's unfinished we didn't put the sides on and everything cause when we found out we needed permits my brother came down here and filed for a permit. MEMBER'HORNING :Who built it? MR. KNOBLOCH : My brother and a friend from upstate he's a contractor and he's from upstate New York. MEMBER HORNING :You had no realization that you would need a permit? MR. KNOBLOCH : No just what his friend said who is a contractor is was only off the ground for about 14 inches so I guess upstate the laws are different so when we had a family friend over over the weekend he had said oh did you get permits for that and we didn't know and he came in I think it was a holiday weekend and he came in that Tuesday and asked the Building Department that's when we started this whole process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's because the deck is actually measuring at the closest points 7 foot 8 inches from your side yard.The code requires a 10 foot. MR. KNOBLOCH :Yea we didn't know so that's why we are here today. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok very good.So you're on a sort of a wedge shaped lot that actually fronts on quite a substantial curve. MR. KNOBLOCH : Correct. MEMBER DANTES Wait did you day 7.8 inches or feet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Feet 7 foot 8 inches. 7 foot 8 inches I believe is the closest point. MR. KNOBLOCH :The Building Department requested that we have a survey and an architect or someone come out and take measurements so those measurements that we got be hard for someone to come out and do all the exact deck dimensions and measurements to the property line. I guess a surveyor so we had that done so we had all that stuff done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you talked to your neighbor about this deck? Do you know your neighbor?The one that shares the property line? MR. KNOBLOCH :We didn't talk to her about beforehand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well I guess we are going to hear from your neighbor. MEMBER HORNING : I have one another question. On your environmental impact statement the short form appendix D glancing through that I happen to notice statement#5 is the proposed action question is it a permitted use under the zoning regulations and you answered no. MR. KNOBLOCH : I didn't fill out like I said my brother was out here with family friends and that's when he came down and filled out all the paperwork so when you're saying no I never saw that form. MEMBER HORNING :Well can I show it to you? MR. KNOBLOCH : Sure CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think Vicki is saying he answered no she took the application and answered no because he figured he needed a variance. MEMBER HORNING : I'm going to ask if you want to change your answer. MR. KNOBLOCH : I would say yes change that because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The use is permitted the deck is permitted but the setback is not. MEMBER HORNING : So you're going to change your answer? MR. KNOBLOCH :Yea if we could. Like I said it was (inaudible) MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Is there any attempt that put a roof over this deck? December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MR.KNOBLOCH :Absolutely not.The reason being is you know we come out here a lot in the summer time and we would barbeque. Before we had a little couple of 12 by 12 cement squares that we could put together and we would BBQ.The problem with that is we were looking into our neighbors dining room window and we didn't want to continue BBQ'ing and have people out and BBQ'ing and looking into that so we wanted to move to the side of the house to where we are not looking in to the side view there and every time it rained we were always walking into the mud and going out there and doing all that cause we don't get a lot of sun back there. It's a lot of dirt,grass never grows back on that side so we wanted to put a deck right off the kitchen because right now we would always have to go thru the kitchen,thru the living room out the screen porch to BBQ and then constantly go in and out and that screen door will keep on slamming and looking into my neighbors dining room window while they're eating and we are BBQ at the same time while they are eating didn't seem like the right thing to do so that's why we want to move the deck you know into the back and BBQ right off our kitchen door to be able to go right out the kitchen door to the deck. And if you look there is no furniture out there it's just really a deck to go BBQ, cook during the cooking hours and then go back in. If you see we have a screened in porch. We that's where we sit out and entertain at night I mean there's a lot of bugs we sit in that screened in porch and that's our main place of entertainment not the back deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken any questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No that was the only question I had. MR. KNOBLOCH : Ok. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application please come forward and state your name speak into one of the microphones. MS. DWYER :Thank you. I'm going to stand a little bit away cause I have quite a cold and I prefer not to share it. I'm Kathleen Dwyer. I reside at 765 Bayview Drive. I just want to point out a couple of things that on the application it has a 12 by 18 on a letter to you guys a 12 by 18 deck which I think it's 19 by 15 so it's misrepresentation there. It was built in May. I came out and discovered it on Memorial Day Weekend it hadn't been there three weeks before. I do have a copy of this letter and I wrote it because of this cold.To whom it may concern thank you for this opportunity to address the Board and share my thought on the above variance request for 795 Bayview Drive East Marion. I know the site well being the homeowner of 765 located to the back of the Knobloch house. Objects strongly to the addition of the deck at 795 Bayview Drive.The deck construction and location was ill considered and done without proper permits.Although the Town has ruled that the deck has been constructed on the side of the Knobloch property it is clearly at the back of the Knobloch house.The deck backs unto the side of my I December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting property and house and due to the location and height of the deck I have lost privacy in my bedroom which is approximately 12 feet from the deck.The deck is an area which individuals gather and use for smoking cigarettes and cigars, making cell phone calls, socializing both early in the morning and late at night, storing of wet towels, empty coolers used bottles and empty cans and unruly dogs. From the deck one has direct view into my bedroom and I am subject to the noise and smoke from the deck as well as unfiltered views of the decks storage beach paraphernalia. I keep my bedroom window closed all the time and the shades down whenever anyone is at the house because I have no privacy in the room.The Knobloch house is rented on a weekly basis during the summer months.The Knobloch house has a large lawn as evidenced by the plot survey and other areas of the house and land would have been better accommodated a deck. I was told the deck was built in the current location so individuals would not have to walk through the dining area or screened porch to get to the outdoor grill but building a door directly from the kitchen to the lawn would have solved this problem. Plus one would not need a deck of the current size if meant only to accommodate a grill.A ground level patio would also have sufficed.The house has a screened in porch which was formerly a deck and was closed in 9 plus or so years ago. It provides nice space to enjoy the outdoors and the grill had formerly been located beside it allowing guests and host to continue to interact when cooking. I want to maintain a cordial relationship with Jim and Mike Knobloch. Despite this issue I like them very much. I understand that Jim and Mike may need to use this home for income and have been willing to support their investment in their mother's home. I've tried to be a good neighbor by being tolerant of the barking dogs renters have left on the porch when they leave and the extreme noise that renters can generate as they celebrate their vacation. I understand that vacation people want to have a nice time. I've tolerated the view of the deck and the storage site as well as not complain when I had to hire an exterminator to eliminate the carpenter ants that according to the exterminator migrated over from the Knobloch wood pile that was stored closer to my house than theirs. So it's really kind of being used as a back yard despite the fact that people view it as a side yard. However the addition of the deck is all getting to be too much. My home is becoming a less pleasant place for me to live.The deck attracts renters and guests to amass outdoors at the expense of my privacy and quality of life.The current shrubbery does not block the view, nor noise or smoke.The Knobloch's did take down the shrubbery that had provided privacy and I never had a problem with them cooking at the grill that was located outside of the porch. Matter of fact I really couldn't see them there and from my dining room window I put shrubs in that really did block the view.That was never an issue I never would of complained about it. My desire is that the deck be removed as doing so would eliminate the problem that it causes. However, if the Town is not willing to mandate this I would be willing to consider having the deck amended to comply with the Town Building Codes under the written condition that it cannot be screened or enclosed at any time. I'm afraid that what happened with the one deck being screened in could possibly happen again. In addition I would want a 6 foot high cedar tongue and groove double side fence be installed between our properties at the Knobloch's expense to run from the front edge of the deck to the first corner marker by my shed.This would if they bring it back to the allowed side and they have to put in a fence then that might be something that we could both live with. If you wish to further discuss, I can be reached at the the below phone number again thank you for your time. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :About how long would the width of that if you wanted to have a fence put in that would provide sufficient screening deck how many feet? IVIS. DWYER : I think it was I asked the contractor to measure that for me and it would be 85 linear feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's long. M'S. DWYER :Yea that's going from the front of the what I'm calling my porch back all along the fence all along CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the entire property line? MS. DWYER:That's the entire property line.They want about something else that's okay but I haven't been providedany other solutions other than we want to keep the whole deck and that is just not something that I'm agreeable to. But 1 do want to say that I mean it really is I had a wonderful relationship with the Knobloch's and I really get no joy out of coming here but I know that this is the process but you know there is something about if we'd even been able to have discussions beforehand I think that probably could of worked out a solution. If they really need that deck in order to get the renters in that they need to accommodate their living expenses there. I don't like it. It is so close to my property because of the odd angle of the property and the house but you know there are other solutions but ideally my first choice is there's not a deck. If it's only for a grill stepping you know down two steps is nothing.And you could put a door right off the kitchen which I did talk to Jim about but he said you know the expense of that they didn't want to incur. MEMBER HORNING : Ma'am on this County Tax Map can you identify your property? MS. DWYER :Sure. I'm right here. I'm this little one. Yes that's me the little one it says 20. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It's 8%sections of fence. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Do you want to address the fence? MR. KNOBLOCH : I just want to start off by saying it's just a deck so I'm not looking to make bad feelings with (in audible) or any of the neighbors in the neighborhood whatsoever. As far as the back of the house there is a photo in there. We went to the back part of our property if you look at the back and we took a photo facing the back of the house that is the back of our property taken all the way at the back foot of our property so that's I took all pictures of all sides of the house where the deck will be located and it's actually on the side between our two houses. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :We've all been there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yea,we've all seen it. MR. KNOBLOCH : As far the door in the kitchen. It's not that easy to put a door to realign a door in a kitchen since we have the cabinets already in. We would have to redo the whole kitchen to move the door over to the side of the house where it would be where the grill was originally located. Where the December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting window is now is where the counter and everything would go. So it's not that easy just to rip out a door and move it into another part of the kitchen.What was I supposed to address as far as? MEMBER SCHNEIDER:The fence. MEMBER GOEHRiNGER :The fence. MR. KNOBLOCH : Oh the fence. When we took down the bushes there originally we were planning on putting up privacy bushes but when we found out that we needed permits and we went here we were basically told to stop so we ripped out some of the bushes there because there were all sticker bushes and to work in that area and work on it we were going to rip it up and put bushes so we are open to whatever privacy I mean we're not looking to say hey this is the way it is.We understand our houses were built close together and I mean that's just the way it was from the beginning. So whether it be a fence or privacy bushes you know we are open to any and all ideas.To be able to move the deck back just from the construction of it there's 4 footings with the poles coming straight up from there so we would actually have to take rip the deck out and it's not just moving it a couple inches back as you would have to pull all the footings up cause the footings go from the ground all the way up and that's what holds up the railing so that would be a hardship as far as pulling all that up. It's a little bit more work than we would probably have to just kind of start all over on the outside there and do all that. We were trying to you know Kathy originally mailed us about all the things that she wanted to be done and as far as a log pile we immediately moved that to the back of the property and out of the way. She also emailed us about the light being so bright shining into her bedroom we actually took out the 60 watt light bulb there cause there's only a little lamp above the door and we actually put a 20 watt yellow bulb in there to bring that down.And then also she had mentioned that the door was slamming a lot we actually went to Ace Hardware and bought another extension rod thing and put It on the bottom so now there's two and the door doesn't slam anymore. We'll do whatever we have to do to make everything right and again it's just a deck.We're not looking to make our neighborhood angry at us and everything so there would be no hard feelings regardless of whatever CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about if the two of you approach here and let's look at the survey okay together now I'm going to ask you to try to talk into these mics because this is our transcript. We don't have obviously information where your structures are located on your property.This is all we've got that shows where your house is and it shows right here from this deck to the property line 7 foot 8 inches. MR. KNOBLOCH :Yea I think this corner is the one that's off right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what they are saying is the closest corner approximately. So your bedroom is somewhere around in here I take it. MS. DWYER :Yeah my bedroom is right it's upside down. Is that the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here MS. DWYER :Yea it's right it's literally right going directly going across from here. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING :What is the setback from your house to your property line? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's pretty close too. MS. DWYER: I'm sorry because I got sick I wasn't able to get out here. I was planning to be out here earlier and I have that information at my house not here. But it's only about 3 feet or something. MEMBER HORNING : So your house a non-conforming setback? MS. DWYER Oh yea. My house was built on a piece of property and it wouldn't be allowed at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well what I'm proposing is let's figure out I mean what you were talking about fence wise would of gone from say about here to there. MS. DWYER :Yea it would of gone CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Along the entire property line here. MR. KNOBLOCH No her shed I think is somewhere near that fence. MS. DWYER :,It's someplace around here.The first property marker is someplace around there so the fence would of gone from basically around here yea is that the marker? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yea I just put it down from what you just said and that would provide sufficient screening certainly and security if there's strangers on the other side. Replanting with evergreen shrubs that are large is probably going to eventually if you put in something like Leyland cypress it's going to be so huge on your side yard that it's almost going to do no good for either one of you.You don't want MS. DWYER : It cuts out more of the sun. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yea and you don't want anything that close to your foundation you know there it's watering and it's continuous maintenance. MR. KNOBLOCH :Whatever she wants as far as a fence if she wants longer or shorter whatever she wants to do . MEMBER SCHNEIDER : How about you go from this angled point in your property line that is defined by a stake to what from the porch maybe the angled point. MS. DWYER:This is what was measured out as being what did I say 85 1 think from yea I think from here you know someplace around here back to the end of the deck is about 40 meaning the Knobloch deck is about 40 feet so it's a big area. MR. KNOBLOCH : If she wants to go out there and stake it actually where she wants and just say hey I'll stake it here and here and we can have the guy build it from there to there. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Why don't we do this how about you go back now to the mic so we can make sure we get you.Suppose we adjourn this for two weeks to the Special Meeting.You guys get together. Figure out what makes sense in terms of you know protecting your view and your privacy with some fencing and come back and tell us. Submit something that you both agreed to to our office that makes sense to you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Now we're talking a 6 foot stockade fence. Is that correct? MEMBER SCHEIDER : 6 foot high. MS. DWYER : It was cedar fence. I've gone out and looked at fences and you know I would be in a worse situation if we went for some of the prefab plastic ones so I am looking for cedar ones.Something that would age over time because the distance from my house to the property line is as you said the trees don't work. It's really narrow so putting shrubs in first of all the shrubs that I put and some of them died because of the lack of sun back there but here it's so narrow that I want something that looks nice cause I'm going now to be looking at instead of looking at trees and shrubs that I looked at before I'm going to be looking at a wall of fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You can also plant on your side of that fence you can plant ground cover. But the,bottom line is I think the willingness of your neighbor to put up a pretty expensive Long piece of fencing should not become overly burdensome by having to put in an extremely fence. I think I'm going to leave that up to the property owner and you to resolve. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No, It's a generic 6 foot stockade fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :As long as we have a code conforming 6 foot high wood fence you know I think that is a perfectly reasonable request and the applicant is clearly willing to address the privacy issues that will help with noise also. MS. DWYER : So are we going to leave it out at 2%2 feet off or are you going to have it go back to the 8 feet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are going to ask you two to get together and decide MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Give us the footage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Give us an agreed to you know what you're both okay with it's up to you how you proceed and once you tell us just yea just either mark this another copy of this survey MR. KNOBLOCH : Do we get a copy from the building department? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of this survey? MR. KNOBLOCH :Yea I didn't get a copy of the survey yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We can make you a copy.We can make both of you copies. ,, December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MS. DWYER: Can I also have a copy of the photographs that were submitted. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No the next question is so that there is no misunderstanding who's getting the good side of the fence. MS. DWYER :That's why I said double sided so we both get the good side of the fence. MEMBER HORNING : I think if it's one sided the Town requires the finished side to face the neighbor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's right. MR. KNOBLOCH : I have no problem and planting some type of bushes on our side. MEMBER'SCHNEIDER :The object here is screening it's not to have some fancy that's up to you Mr. Knobloch.The object here is screening whether it be a fence or bushes you know I guess growing some type of shrub or bushes there would be difficult MR. KNOBLOCH : I just want to add that we you know it's the side of the deck wasn't finished I mean once we went to the Building Department after he just built it we just stopped cause we didn't know what was coming on so we weren't able to put any privacy anything up there cause we didn't know what was going to go on with the hearing. MEMBER HORNING :You built it over a the course of a weekend? Is that right? MR.KNOBLOCH : No not a weekend. He's not that good. I would say it was a couple of days. I don't know the exact time but I would say from a Wednesday to a Sunday in that ballpark. MEMBER HORNING :You might want to look into the Code about rentals. MR. KNOBLOCH :Yea we were about to do (inaudible) in the back thru Century 21. MS. DWYER : I'm sorry you've visited the property? MEMBER GOEHRINGER :We all did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes.We saw your house we saw the deck. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : If it was a little warmer I probably would of sat down for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now we have a choice here folks,we can close subject to receipt cause I don't think we are going to need another hearing on this.That makes sense to everybody. So I'm going to make a motion to close subject to receipt of a proposal for privacy fencing along the mutual property line on the applicant's side of the property line.To be signed off by the both of you. MR. KNOBLOCH :What was the date again? MEMBER DANTES :Two weeks from today. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's December 18th MR. KNOBLOCH : Is there a time? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well I'd like to have you submit that before then because what we will if we receive it let's say within how long do you need like a week? MR. KNOBLOCH : My brother is from upstate he had to go to a doctor's appointment today or else he would have been here but he would come back down and all three of us can MS. DWYER: I'm having surgery on the 11th which means I can't come out here I have to go back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me do this,we are going to close this subject to receipt of that information which means we can receive it anytime it's ready okay. So we won't start the process of making a decision until we get it. Alright? Once we get it the law allows us 60 days to make a determination. MS. DWYER : So can we just, I mean I've agreed to if we just say January 1 cause it would give me more time sounds Like you guys MEMBER SCHNEIDER :That's something you guys work out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You work it out.That's not you know MR. KNOBLOCH :Just understanding that whatever fence goes up I won't be able to go up until the ground thaws out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course,of course that's perfectly reasonable.What I'm trying to say is as soon as you get it to us that's when the clock starts on our obligation to make a decision. MS. DWYER :That's just, it I'd like that sooner than later so that we can get this CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's up to the two of you to work out.The sooner you submit it the sooner you get a decision. MS. DWYER : Can you agree that we'll submit it by January 1? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's up to you. MR. KNOBLOCH Absolutely. My brother is retired so he can come down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We are not going to impose a time frame.You will decided for yourselves it appears that you are both very nice neighbors to each other and that you're trying your best to accommodate each other and I think that's very appreciated by this Board would that more neighbors be as willing so work out what you think you can both live with and let us know what that is and we will incorporate that into our you know we can make it up ourselves we can just close this thing and just say here's what you're going to have to do to keep the deck.Alright, but it seems to me that since you are 17j December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting agreeable to working with each other it makes more sense for you both to feel okay about it rather than our arbitrarily saying 40 foot of fencing or 80 feet of fencing or whatever.Alright. Generally the Board will just tell an applicant the length and height we don't specify we're not going to get into dictating what kind of cost and so on and so forth that's a private decision. Okay but the goal here is screening. Okay. Reasonable screening. Doesn't mean the entire yard needs to be fenced in. MR. KNOBLOCH : No, it's not a community where there's a ton of MS WEISMAN : No I can see it's all irregularly shaped, non-conforming lots MS. DWYER :The community doesn't actually the rules in the community they don't allow 6 foot fences so we'll have to bypass that and deal with the community because they don't I mean it's part of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You have covenants and restrcitions? MS. DWYER They don't allow it but because the whole idea is the community you could never build anything that would block anyone else's view. Now they haven't always enforced that when people have put them between their houses that doesn't block someone's view so they kind of turned a blind eye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well, unless there are covenants and restrictions on the subdivision which were not in this application the Board then a decision from this Board based on variance relief will take precedence.Alright, MS. DWYER :When we submit it in I can send you some of that because I mean CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's really not relevant to us. MS. DWYER : But just I mean I understand certainly the privacy you know noise that but it is there is also something that I had a very nice view. I'd like to retain a nice view and you know that's why I'm talking about the quality of the fence that I've looked at them. I don't MEMBER DANTES : By code there is no real protection of views though.The Town Code doesn't protect people's views. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you're going to talk you have to stand by the microphone because otherwise it won't be a part of the record. MS_ DWYER : I had you know shrubbery and privacy you know it was nice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look,you know what if you get a fence you can do anything you want on the other side.You just said that the shrubs died because they didn't get any sun. MS. DWYER : I said some of the shrubs died I didn't say all of them. V_ December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know it's entirely up to you how you treat your own property. All we're trying to do here is resolve an issue between decent neighbors that will allow no one to look into your bedroom window. Okay and MS. DWYER:And protect me from renters noise and smoke and you know viewing what's become a storage site. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You know what that's part of the problem we all face out here. Every single one of us depending on how close our properties are to other our neighbors property we are all dealing with problems of renters out here.As a matter of fact the Town Board is now addressing transient rental legislation and something will be done at some point.We don't know what. But that is not within the jurisdiction of this Board okay at this point. We are only dealing with a setback that is 7.8 feet as opposed to 10 feet which is not an egregious by the way variance. It is not hugely substantial deviation of the Code and that's one of the things we have to look at. How substantial is the variance and what conditions can mitigate any adverse impact.The fencing is one way to mitigate an adverse impact which is not uncommon for the Board to impose or evergreen screening depending on what this site specifically allows. MEMBER HORNING : It is an as built structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of a proposal form the applicant and the neighbor on fencing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye MEMBER SCHNEIDER :Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye (See Minutes for Resolution.) MS. DWYER :Thank you. MR. KNOBLOCH :Thank you. HEARING#6812 - ROGER HERMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Roger Herman#6812 Request for a Variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 16, 2014 Notice of Disaproval based on an application for a building permit for a deck addition to existing single family 9 December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting dwelling,at; less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet; located at : 18 Sound Road Greenport, NY. SCTM #1000-35-1-17.Would you state your name for us please. MR.TRPICOVSKY: Good morning Chair and members of the Board Richard Trpicovsky 173 North Main Street Sayville New York. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Okay we have a proposed deck addition to a single family dwelling with a front yard setback of 9 foot 8 inches where the Code requires 35 feet.The gazebo that's associated with this deck is that to be located on the deck? MR.TRPICOVSKY : On top of it yes, attached to it as an entry way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We have a letter of support from your neighbor. MR.TRPICOVSKY:Yes,thank you I have a copy of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:The house is currently at 19 foot 8 inches from the road is that correct? MR.TRPICOVSKY:That is correct.The home was built 19 foot 8 which makes practically similar to your other thing any type of an entry way would be not in compliance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and the proposed entry deck it like 10 by 10? MR.TRPICOVSKY:That is correct. It's 10 by 10 and the gazebo will fit within that perimeter of the size of the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :What other kind of setbacks that other houses have along that street that are similar in size. MR.TRPICOVSKY:Yes they are. I did a study of the along the area and along that side of the road in particular lot sizes are very similar and both to north and south immediately the setbacks of the homes there appear to have similar or possibly less setback for front enclosures. MEMBER HORNING :You're saying approximately a 20 foot setback? MR'.TRPICOVSKY : I would say less than that I would say more like a 10 foot setback.The houses two houses to the south is a brown house which I provided cedar shake house there's a front porch coming out which appears to be at the same or even closer to the road that what we are proposing here and immediately to the north also has a front enclosure with a small deck step down which appears to be similar or less distance from the road than what we are proposing. Also,and again I know it is a physical right of way but the lawns on these properties do extend about 10 feet roughly from the property line and to the street pavement and I know that is a right of way but it also gives the appearance that they have bigger front yards than they do. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : My question is how do you flash that type of structure to the house if you I mean because they're all graduated structures around? 0 December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MR.TRPiCOVSKY: I understand that and it will be constructed where it is attached in between that would come to the building department plans but of course that's the whole idea is to have it it's going to be attached to the deck itself and brought to the roof line I'm not sure exactly the fashion but the flashing between so that you don't have you know weather that's the whole thing is to an entry way without being in the weather. I will also note that on the previous on the building card it does show the house back in 2006 that had a similar size deck on it. Now whether it was ever legalized or not I don't know and it has like a pergola over it kind of similar in what we are requesting now except that it doesn't have a roof a gazebo CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You have no plans to enclose this structure? MR.TRPICOVSKY: No, no, no, it's something that's being you know would be fabricated as a typical gazebo with kind of open sides so there would be no obstruction of view or traffic to anybody. MEMBER HORNING :Sir,would it be fair to say that because it's an entryway that you do not have an appropriate alternative location that you could MR.TRPICOVSKY:Yes,that is true.The property again the house being 19 foot S a 10 by 10 entry I think is a reasonable size entry they didn't try to make it huge and there would really be no other appropriate way to have a protected entry way other than doing this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES: No that covers it for me. MR.TRPICOVSKY:It does seem to fit the characteristics of the neighborhood. In particular I don't see any adverse impact on the neighborhood either traffic or environmentally. CHAIRPERSONWEISMAN :Well you know we have gone out to see the site and we have I'm sure everyone drove up and down the road.The houses vary in size depending on how close you are to the north road or the sound(inaudible) MR.TRPICOVSKY I will also say that I think if you've visited the property which I have to say I admire and like that the whole Board goes and sees things that's great. I sat on the Zoning Board once myself so it's a great thing to do.The homeowner does keep quite a meticulous property anything that's been done there I think you'll see it's been well done and well kept and it's an asset to the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken anything? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Nope I'm fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anybody else? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Nope 4 . December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anyone else in the audience want to address this application? No further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER HORNING :Aye MEMBER SCHNEIDER :Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye (See Minutes for Resolution.) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We will be working on this draft two weeks from today. MR.TRPICOVSKY : Okay so give a call maybe on the 19th? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yea call. MR.TRPICOVSKY : Okay I appreciate it have a great day. HEARING#6817—LAURA COLIN KLEIN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application is for Laura Colin Klein#6817 this is a request for Variance from Article III Section 280-12 and the Building Inspector's October 30, 2014 Notice of Disaproval based on an application for building permit for additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling, at; 1) less than code required front yard setback of 50 feet, located at: 3595 Paradise Point Road(aka Robinson Road) (adj.to Southold Bay)Southold, NY. SCTM # 1000-81-1-15.5 MR. WEBER : Hi my name if Fred Weber I'm representing Laura Klein for the construction of a proposed second floor addition.The site is 2.29 acres it's a R80. It's a wooded lot which opens to wetlands and water to the north.The existing house is a modern has a modern recto-linear design with an existing 50 foot setback.What they would like to do is to add a bedroom and a bath to the house equivalent to that shaded portion to accommodate family and guests.They're building or planning to build the addition which would be in line with the theme of the front of the house in line with the front of the house. It's basically filling in this corner.The house on the I guess on the west side has is this two story and the east side is this one story so what we would be doing is filling in a 12 foot 4 inch wide section but the 12 foot side faces the street and this side faces the side yard.The window treatments and the siding would be the same as what's there to blend in with what's there and I don't believe substantially changes the elevation and everything is in line with existing construction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fred the existing front yard setback is 50 feet and that's being maintained you're just simply adding there is no change in the footprint. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MR. WEBER :Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask the square footage of the total square footage of the addition? MR.WEBER : I should have had this figured out ahead of time and I probably have this written down MEMBER GOEHRINGER :You can submit it you don't have to you know MR'.WEBER :Well I could I mean I have the dimensions right here.So it's 34.5 times (inaudible) It's 425 square feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Now some of that's over that pool area right? MR.WEBER :Ah no.It's actually over the kitchen and over a laundry area. It's not over the pool. In fact, the east wall of the addition is built over in a sense the west wall of the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER RANTES : No I don't have any question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING : I'm all set thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.Anyone else in the audience wish to address this application?Okay no further questions or comments I make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision for later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Second. CHAIRPERSONWEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER HORNING :Aye MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye MEMBER RANTES :Aye HEARING#6811—ALLEN SANKOVICH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is Allen request for Variances but rather than read it somebody might be so I'm going to read it Request for Variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's July 21, 2014 Notice of Disaproval based on an application for an "as built" location of an accessory in-ground swimming pool, at; 1) less than the code required December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting side yard setback of 5 feet, 2) less than the code required rear yard setback of 5 feet, located at: 1240 Longview Lane,Southold, NY. SUM#1000-88-4-45. Is there anyone here in this audience who has come for that. We have a written request from the applicant to adjourn this hearing to our January Public Hearing our regular meeting. He was apparently unable to get the green cards and proper mailings done. So I'm making a motion to adjourn to when is January the what? MS.TOTH':the 8th Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :the 8t"?What time do you want to put that on? I don't think we should start the hearings until maybe definitely no later than 9:30.We have an organizational meeting in January prior to our regular stuff. So maybe we should start the hearings at 10.And you could start our meetings at or 8:30. So you want to put that first thing at 10 am?Okay 10 A.M. So moved. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER HORNING :Aye MEMBER SCHNEIDER :Aye MEMBER GOEHRING'ER :Aye (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING#6814 GEORGE ROHRBACH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for George Rohrbach#6814 Request for Variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's September 5,2014 Notice of Disaproval based on an application for building permit for accessory garage, at; location other than the code required rear yard, located at 1620 Grand Avenue Mattituck, NY. SCTM# 1000-107-3-9.2. Would you state your name for us please. MR. ROHRBACH: My name is George Rohrbach. I reside at 1620 Grand Ave in Mattituck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This accessory garage is proposed to be located in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard location. It would appear from your application that it's a 720 square foot 30 by 24 foot proposed unheated garage. MR. ROHRBACH : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This property also seems to front on the right of way. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MR. ROHRBACH : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yea.So let's see you already have a framed garage right near by and you want to,have a second one. How are you proposing to use these garages? MR. ROHRBACH :Storage CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You're going to use it for storage, of what? MR. ROHRBACH : I have motorcycles and automobiles to put in there and equipment,yard equipment that sort of thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How are you going to access this proposed garage? From the existing driveway or from the right of way? MR. ROHRBACH :Yes from the existing driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You have any legal access to that right of way? Does anybody or MR. ROHRBACH :Yea there's a house behind me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, so that's a right of way it's not a flagged lot or anything? MR. ROHRBACH : No actually it's a flagged lot I think they call it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is a flagged so that belongs to their property? MR. ROHRBACH : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you're allowed to use it? MR. ROHRBACH : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So but you're proposing access from your is that how you access the existing garage? MR. ROHRBACH :Yes it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :And what's that used for right now? MR. ROHRBACH: I have a hobby motorcycle hobby and I use the garage to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's a workshop of some sort? MR. ROHRBACH : Pretty much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Looks like your lot coverage,you have a big lot will only be 10.8%. How come you can't put it in the code conforming rear yard? December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MR. ROHRBACH :That's where my cesspools are located. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You also have a swimming pool. MR. ROFIRBACH : Correct. My wife has a swimming pool. MEMBERDANTES Leslie is there code conforming rear yard? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not really. MEMBER DANTES: Cause the swimming pool is raised right?The swimming pool is a raised structure? MR. ROHRBACH : No. MEMBER DANTES : It's on the ground? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : In-ground. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah there is a rear yard (inaudible) MR. ROHRBACH : It's all attached. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Any questions Eric? MEMBER DANTES: I thought I remember seeing steps there when they go up to the pool. MR. ROHRBACH :Going up into the house. MEMBER DANTES: Oh is that what I was looking at? MR. ROHRBACH :Yea it goes right up to the kitchen door. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?George?Any question to this applicant? MEMBER HORNING : I yea was wondering if he had considered alternative location and you don't really have space in an official rear yard. Is that what you're saying? MR. ROHRBACH : No I there's an area between the house and the existing garage but that's where my cesspool and my drainage is all in there for the house and I would have to build on top of that so that wouldn't be good. MEMBER HORNING :And how about the idea of attaching it to the house. Did you consider that at ail? MR. ROHRBACH : It really wouldn't be conforming to the area you know. It wouldn't look CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Are you saying that most of the houses there have accessory garages, detached ones Zz December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MR. ROHRBACH :Yea that's correct.Across the street they have attached garages but that's kind of a newer area. My house is pretty old. I've been there for 40 years and it's probably 80,85 years old to start with so that's the way all the houses on that side of the road which were the original houses there. They're all basica'l'ly set up that way with detached garages or no garages at all.All the lots along that whole area are probably half the size of mine. I have basically two lots when I originally bought it 40 years ago it was two Jots and then it was joined together at some point. CHAIRPERSONWEISMAN :Anybody else?There is no one in the audience so hearing no further comments or questions close this hearing and reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER HORNING :Aye MEMBER SCHNEIDER :Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING#6797 MACH 3, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for MACH 3 LLC#6797 It's a carryover so we don't need to read the Legal Notice again. We left off with electric bills. I think that's where we were and an investigation into to the feasibility of remain detached or attached. MS. MOORE :Very good.Well you've just pretty much addressed my outline.What I did is so that partly for myself to keep track where we left off we do have an application that's for the preexisting seasonal accessory habitable structure which contains a half bath, outdoor shower, kitchenette and sleeping quarters.That's what we have before you. At the last hearing there was a suggestion about can't we connect these structures and my client said Oh I'll certainly check on that.She checked,she's here, she's an architect so she can certainly speak in much more detail as far as what the problems were.We gave you our or I included in the letter that I sent her outline of the difficulty that comes up with that option and originally I was going to try to synthesize what she said and rewrite it and I said No. What she wrote to me to explain why it can't be done because my question that I knew you would as is Why? It's not arbitrary here that she doesn't want to or wouldn't do it. I think that there are some very significant reasons why it can't be done and that's what I had Joe prepare in that memo that is dated November 24th.And so she analyzed very specifically keeping it as an accessory building versus connecting it which would then become a principal structure.We discussed some of the zoning issues with respect to that which would lead to two variances for that purpose to allow for that but more importantly it's the state code Limitations that are significant here and cost significant cost differential. So,then we go to the December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting electric bills.Joe got I'm sorry it's Jo Machinist who's the principal of Mach3 LLC and she is here. She also happens to be an architect so she's a professional and she's been very helpful in explaining what has been going on in her construction and her planning. She got from PSEG and from well from PSEG the electric bills which she initially gave you just for the accessory cottage cause that's what you guys accessory structure cause that's what you asked for. But then we she also got the electric bills for the main house and what I did in my analysis because you do have the specifics. I did a recall a rough and dirty averaging and in my outline for this for today I show for the seasonal accessory versus the dwelling these low bills.They when we asked Mr. Nopalitano he provided a really good affidavit of the families very conscientious effort at keeping utilities low.The way very old fashioned type enjoyment of the property without any computers and with probably television at best maybe one with it was it's very rustic and that's just a wonderful way to enjoy vacation which is this area's beautiful and nature's what you enjoy. So if you as you can see,the electric bills show in use and certainly the structures have been continuously been in use. We gave you affidavits. We know that approximately when they were let's say we're getting now 56,58 it's starting to become such a long time now that fewer and fewer people are alive that can provide those affidavits but we were very fortunate to have one of our neighbors who grew up on that street and provided Miss Raya that provided the affidavit from when her parents lived onthat'block and owned the house she lives in.So,we believe we've given you adequate and sufficient and compelling information that the structure should have been issued a Pre C.O. . We are the use of it is certainly less than a dwelling. It's going to remain seasonal. It remains as is today.Jo did do a kind of a plan for the a schematic of how one would fix that structure as is and I thought that would be very helpful for the Board to see we do want to fix this structure, make it safe but not change it's use from what it has always been. So,why don't I give that to you if you're ready for it? I don't want to stop any questions but I'll give you what I have. MS. MACHINIST: Good afternoon thank you for hearing us again today. I'm Jo Machinist, I am the managing partner of MACH3 LLC and what you have before I describe the schematic intention of what I want to do or what we want to do to the cottage my goal is to keep the aesthetic and historical flavor of the house,the cottage,the corner the landscaping to make the final result look like it's been restored. And so,when just as a short summary.When I first was the buyer or the proposed buyer for this house when I saw it I thought I understood that both buildings were capability of sleeping quarters and that the only thing standing in the way was the objections of the building inspector and there were 4 very explicit objections that the sale of the property could not be realized till these objections or correct violations were corrected and that the owner selling to the buyer that's me would receive a Pre C of O and the owner at the time couldn't afford to do all of the repairs or the corrections so I chipped in and between the two of us satisfied the 4 of 5 violations that the building inspector had in order to award this property that had been called nothing other than barracks to render it acceptable to receive a Pre C of O. One of the things was smoke detectors and removing the electrical heat to maintain the seasonality of the cottage. It never occurred to me that I would be doing this for a storage building. The building itself I don't know how many exterior photographs you've seen or I think some of you have visited it.There are like 8 or 9 windows.The furthest thing in my mind could be a storage building. So I proceeded in my mind and in my overall scope to address this as two seasonal buildings, one to be turned into an all year round building which would be the major dwelling and to keep the cottage as a 4 December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting seasonal summer house. So what you have before you on drawing Al-A is the schematic proposal of what would be being done to the cottage and in the lower left hand corner,this is a very simple plan and left to right is a storage area, a bathroom with a toilet and a sink all the way far left is the outdoor shower which exists and an open recreations room. I'm really not quite sure what I'm calling it but the intent was to have bunk beds for the overflow kids from the main house.The other things that are important are straightening out the house as we talked about last time it's quite un level and I've suggested a monolithic slab 18 inches deep versus 3 foot to 4 foot deep if I had to renovate this into a dwelling according to code.So, and certainly I wanted to be able we wanted to be able to stand up aesthetically and historically and contiguously with the other house that is being restored and renovated so we put the same siding and the same roofing on it.You know as far as the electrical as couple of fans no electric heat more windows to let in more sun to keep it warm fans to keep it cool and that's a summer seasonal house.That's what you have before you is what the intention is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can I ask you a question?The summary that Ms. Moore just gave us describing this preexisting seasonal accessory habitable structure containing half bath outdoor shower kitchenette sleeping quarters. I see on your plan you have it's drawn countertop sink along the plumbed wall plumbing is underneath was there any intent to cook in that facility? MS. MACHINIST: No there is no oven shown.There's just a sink. It's like a bar like a recreation a media room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There may or may not be an under counter refrigerator. MS. MACHINIST:There could be an under counter refrigerator. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No cooking facilities. IVIS. MACHINIST: No cooking. Which is exactly what's there now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So probably the term wet bar is more appropriate than kitchenette. MEMBER GOEHRING'ER :When did you take title to this? MS. MACHINIST:August MEMBER GOEHRINGER :August of 2014? MS. MACHINIST:Yes MS. MOORE :With respect to that we actually appealed the Building Inspector's Pre C.O. right away, within the 30 days. Right away we disputed it and we tried to go back to the building department and say Gary we don't understand you've seen this, we've given you everything you know why did we get this storage building and we didn't get an answer he wouldn't back off so here we are. We didn't really have another option. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES:When you said there's going to be beds and was a recreation room, how many people do you imagine will be sleeping in that room? MS. MACHINIST:Three single beds. Kids, overflow children. 'Right now there were three beds in the room in one room sectioned off in the end there in the beds aren't drawn but the existing conditions were drawn in there a bedroom cornered off. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Trying to find in the previous records the square footage of this. M5.MACHINIST: 650 square feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Would there be a time that you would be renting this on the open market? MS. MACHINIST: I would rent them I would either I have options. I would rent the main house and the overflow would go to this. It would all be one rental. It would not be two separate rentals for two separate families. What it does is I bought two buildings. One is 1000 square feet one is 650. One's two bedrooms and a tiny little bedroom and if I can get more sleeping out of this to render this four bedrooms that makes more sense for a family or two couples that want to be in the main house and their kids could be in the smaller house. But one kitchen one living room you know just a recreation room. It's just for over flow. So it makes 1600 square feet is not a lot but to be limited to 1000 after the investment was quite a surprise. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So, are you planning to live seasonally in the year round house with MS. MACHINIST:Some of it I will,yes. Can't afford to retire. No and because it's so fabulous out here and of course I want to do that but I need to make this financial feasible and sensible to me and to you know the option which I was thrilled about to make the cottage into principal dwelling and attach it would be ideal but it's just financially infeasible for me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER :You're proposing a slab on grade so there'll be no crawl space or anything? MS. MACHINIST: Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : How do you propose to do the plumbing just overhead and down? MS. MACHINIST:Yea overhead and down and I'll make an expansion area around the pipes that go through the slab. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So you plan on jacking up the building? MS. MACHINIST: Well it's going to be you know you suggested sir Gerry Goehrigner to raise it up which is I don't have yea to raise it up a block so I'll have some space under there and the pipes can be insulated and they'll be turned off in the winter.Anything else?And I just wanted to add I know you 50 December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting asked me for 10 years of electric bill history and I did put in that request and that's all archived so it's not available.When it is I'll be happy to show it to you but I did get 4 years of each building. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Did they give you any indication when you might get it? MS. MACHINIST:They said two or three weeks. I asked the day after the request which was 2%weeks ago. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :So it should be coming shortly then. MS. MACHINIST:Any moment,yep. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :So we should probably leave this open right until to the Special Meeting to receive that or do you want to close it subject to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or we can close it subject to receipt. I don't think there's going to be any further questions that it's just a matter whatever documentation is available that we have in our record. I don't think we can request what they can't provide. MS. MOORE : My question would be do you really need it because I think the reason that the 10 years was requested was that it looks so low the past 5 years 4 years was provided was such a low number I think we've explained why it was so low. If it's explained to your satisfaction that maybe we can move on but if you want us to submit we will 1 mean my client has put in that request I just again we don't know how long you know 3 weeks can certainly be longer depending on PSEG's retrieval MS. MACHINIST:And I have been calling them. It's just not available. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But they do have it in archives and they can make it available it's just that when MS. MACHINIST: If they don't have then but they just said it's archived and it will take time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My initial concern really among many there was to make sure that it had not been abandoned basically that was the reason for these electric bills. Beyond what do we have here a couple 2010, 2011, 2012, 14 1 mean it's the more recent history that you know I would personally I won't speak for the rest of the group but that would be the stuff that I would find more relevant to whether or not this is been occupied as described in the property description and the assessor's office as barracks sleeping. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I just say something about that? If the building was in perfect condition I could buy the four years okay. I would expect more usage but the building in it's present condition I think we should see more cause it was probably in better condition five,six seven, eight nine years ago and maybe used more and it should show it won't show higher prices but it will show in reference in cost per kilowatt but it will show more usage maybe. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MS. MOORE : I don't know what it's going to you know we'd be guessing what it shows. I think given Mr. Napolitano's use and family use he was pretty clear that no this is a summer place where in the summertime they hada fan or a light bulb sounded like that was the extent of their electric usage.You can see a-little more usage in the main house probably cause that's you would they would cook and have dinner and so on so there would be a little more time just even evening hours in that building.This was really used as the overflow sleeping quarters so how much time in the summertime when the lights go out at 9 o'clock you got maybe an hour an hour and a half before it's bedtime if you've spent the whole day outside enjoying you know the area so I don't anticipate we're going to see very much differently but you know it certainly is your call. I just I think you have enough to support our application or I hope you have enough and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is proposed to be renovated in place and in kind right? MS. MOORE :Yes,yes in place in kind. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No enlargement is proposed or should any enlargement take place? MS. MOORE : None. No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That would be an expansion of the preexisting non-conformity so MS. MOORE: Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We wouldn't want to be doing that. MS. MOORE: Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I have enough but if the Board wants to MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Well I'd still like it if she has it MS. MOORS :Well if we get we'll give it to you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Let's wait for it for a week or two and see what happens. MS. MOORE: If it comes in a week we'll give it to you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I would wait up till almost to the meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You want just close it at the meeting and then decide then if we got it we've got it and if we don't we'll decide what to do about it. MS. MOORE :Alright,when's your next CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Two weeks. MS. MOORE :Two weeks, okay December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Two weeks from today. MS. MOORE :Alright. So we'll just monitor if we get it we'll certainly provide it and if we don't well you know what I'll give you a letter that says we have not gotten it yet so could you close your hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So give us something. MS. MOORE : I'll give you something so we are not leaving you hanging or so MEMBER HORNING :Sort of a provocative question......once the applicant is granted a second dwelling unit if that was the case what prevents MS. MOORE It's not a second dwelling CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's not a second dwelling. It will be a seasonal cottage. MEMBER HORNING :Okay what would prevent you from putting in a kitchen facility renting it separately all this kind of thing? MEMBER DANTES : Our conditions. MS.MOORE :Yeah your conditions which are enforeceable you know and always neighbors are so accommodating to enforce them. I doubt that there will be any issue plus as a professional particularly as an architect and this is why(inaudible)clients when they choose to do things without the legal umbrella. It creates such Liability to have people in a structure without Pre C.O.or a C.O.. That you know I feel obliged to tell a client they do what they want to do but I feel my obligation as a lawyer is met. She's an architect and she's a professional and MS'. MACHINIST:And I would say whether CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please come to the microphone. MS. MACHINIST: I would say that to make the two buildings one dwelling was fabulous.This is just as good.They are separated I'm still viewing it as one building and I'm still viewing the cottage and the restoration and the renovation of the cottage to be sound level structurally valid. I have three means of egress. I have a window egress. I mean it's going to be level. It's going to be safe and so the whole the scope of what I want to do is really perceived as one building and just not be able to afford to bring the whole thing up to code. MEMBER HORNING :You put smoke detectors in it? MS. MACHINIST: Oh yes of course.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Looking at Webster's definition of barracks so you're only allowed to rent to soldiers. MS. MOORE :Thank you Stephen. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Just provocative soldiers. MS. MOORE : Let me tell you,that was the Town's description not ours. STEPHEN KIELY :There is a second definition which says a structure is (inaudible) barn that provides temporary housing. So in our code when we don't have a definition in it we defer to Websters. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well I would actually define this structure cottage that's defined by square footage and it can be seasonal it can be year round. Not defined as a dwelling by size. It's a cottage. If there is no cooking facilities in it probably the better way to define it is a seasonal habitable accessory structure with barracks sleeping permitted. MS. MOORE :Why barracks sleeping? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well because it means there are not separate bedrooms.There are not that's what MS. MOORE : Oh okay non partitioned bedroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words it's a big room that beds can go in.That's what barracks typically Like a ward in a hospital. MS. MOORE : Well that makes more sense why calling it barracks because it was all it was like a section of the building was sleeping the other section was living. It wasn't was there a partition? MS. MACHINIST:Yea it was a whole room (inaudible) and that was the sleeping areas.That's fine that's great there has to be a certain amount of privacy. MEMBER HORNING Just for a correction of the record I was taking from the Notice of Disaproval that refers to the conversion of an existing accessory storage building to a second dwelling unit. MS. MOORE :We understand. We disagree with that. No I understood why you asked. CHAIRPERSONWEISMAN :That's why they are asking us to interpret actually.This is a request to either overturn the denial of the PreCO or to at least interpret this definition so it's a little different. It's not a variance relief it's MS. MOORE : It's what the the only definition the Building Department has so you see that every time there's someone here with you know with some form of living space they call it a second dwelling even though it technically we talked about it last meeting it doesn't meet the definition of a dwelling. MEMBER HORNING :You're saying it more like a barracks CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address this application. Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks which is December 18`h is it?Yes Subject to receipt of additional electric bills and then we'll either have it or we won't. Actually I'm not going to make it subject to receipt I'm just going a December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting to adjourn it that way we don't have to go through saying we don't get it then we have to then what do we have to do so cause it's not a hearing so we can't really do much at the Special MS. MOORE :Alright,so you'll close at the next meeting and if I have something for you by the next meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We either close it with or close it without. MS. MOORE : And obviously if another question comes up (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes okay that was a motion. Do I have a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER HORNING :Aye MEMBER SCHNEIDER :Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye (See Minutes for Resolution.) HEARING#6813 FRANK MCGUIRE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Frank McGuire#6813 Request for Variances from Article III Section 280-14,Section 280-15 and Article XXIII Section 280-122A and the Building Inspector's September 8, 2014 Notice of Disaproval based on an application for building permit for"as built" additions/alterations to existing single family dwelling and accessory structures,at; 1) (dwelling) less than the code required single side yard setback of 20 feet, 2) (pool house) location other than code required rear yard; 3) (garage) location other than code required rear yard, located at : 2800 Bridge Lane Cutchogue, NY. SCTM #1000-85-2-3. Would you please state your name and spell it. MS. KAZEL: Keri Kazel CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You're representing the applicant,you're an architect? MS. KAZEL:Yes. I'm the architect for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So let's just see what we are looking at.There are additions and alterations that are as built.Two accessory structures and an existing single family dwelling.The dwelling has a 6 foot 7 inch single side yard where the code requires 23.The as built converted barn to a pool house is in a side yard made possible by the addition to the house so it's a sort of technical change.Then the December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting additions and alterations to the existing non-conforming garage located in the side yard are not permitted because it increases the degree of non-conformance. MS. KAZEL: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The Board has all been out to make site inspections so we are familiar with the property.We have seen all of the structures in question. Okay what else would you like us to know? MS. KAZEL:Thank you.The addition to the home was completed the covered porch was completed four year last year it was completed and then four years ago they did a little addition to the home which was a family room and a living room.That addition was 573 square feet.The porch is 380 square feet.That's what triggered the 6.7 foot side yard setback where 20 feet is required.The parcel if you look at the aerials that I handed up is over 9 acres in size and on that side of the parcel which would be the it would be the northeast side of the parcel it butts up to just acres and acres of expansive property. It's not near any dwelling so we feel that the request would not have a very big impact on any of the homes in the area. Going to the second request would be the addition to the pool house.The addition to the barn which would be the small pool house which has no bathroom in it just a small refrigerator and it's near 219 square feet.I know that's the (inaudible)says it's located in the side yard so if you look at the parcel you'll see that it's a large 9 acre L shaped parcel with the meet of the property actually being the big leg if you may to the back of the parcel. So similar to the addition to the house that small addition to the barn which they are calling the pool house to us would have no impact to any adjacent properties as well and that's that structure to me would actually have no impact on any adjacent parcels. So CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That structure is also open is it not?Sort of screen MS. KAZEL: If you look at the pictures it looks kind of like a screened room. It's labeled pool house it looks like a sun room actually. It has a lot of windows. It is enclosed.The open structure is the covered porch that actually was connected to the main house.So if you'll see those photographs you might see an open structure that was connected to the main house and that's the covered porch that's triggering the 6.7 foot relief side yard setback and that's 380 square feet.And then the third structure that we're here asking relief for is the garage.That's located in the side yard now that garage was existing for many years. My clients bought the property and it was severely dilapidated falling down on locusts post and unfortunately my clients took it upon themselves to have it repaired and rebuilt and that was two years ago. It's 866 square feet and the parcel next to it it pretty much butts up to their back yard and their pool so they only use this for storage.These clients happen to be antique dealers. When you went out to the site you may have seen a lot of storage going on on this site.That's because they are antique dealers and they use these structures to store their antiques. So that garage isn't really used for cars so there would be no traffic on that side of the parcel just used for storage and we feel that that would also have a minimal impact to the house on that side of the parcel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Are you saying that that addition on the garage looks like it's 26%, 26 feet inch by 14 feet 3 inches it says workshop on something. Is that actually a workshop or is that storage? December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MS. KAZEL: It's actually storage now. My clients are very elderly and they don't conduct a workshop out of there. It's used right now for just a storage building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you answer question.When I was there I saw there's another building that's under construction has a Stop Work Order some sort of a it's an accessory building of some sort. MS. KAZEL:Yeah it's actually a two story building which was under construction which actually triggered the Stop Work Order and it doesn't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you all see this on the site? MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Yea I was in it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER :Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not addressed in the Notice of Disaproval. MS. KAZEL : Because it didn't require any variances only a building permit. So we didn't get a denial for that particular structure on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see.And that's gonna go depending what happens here with all these other MS. KAZEL Yes well if the Board looks favorably upon the application and grants the structures then we can go ahead and file for building permits for all the structures on the property and legalize them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So they just stopped you despite the MS. KAZEL :Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : legality of the structure while all these other issues MS. KAZEL:Exactly he couldn't continue working on anything until we cleared up all the other violations. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a question. Do you have I've received actually there's no date on it and you're referring to that structure as structure#4 in this letter. Oh yes August 1St this letter here. Is that structure#4 in this letter? Detached two story barn. Is that this one? MS. KAZEL :Yeah we had thought that that building was going to need a variance MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay so that is that barn that is that building. Now when I discussed this with your client he informed that that this was a some sort of migrant shack or something that he showed me some remnants of it laying over there. Did it have a foundation underneath it or is this a brand new foundation? It looks like a brand new everything here. MS. KAZEL : I think it's my understanding that when they purchased the parcel that was considered a migrant shack or what used to be used as a migrant shack.They wanted to fix it up to use it for more .......... December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting storage for their antiques. It was a locust post failing down structurally unsound.So he took it upon himself to just renovate it and rebuild it and then the contractor who I spoke to today said that it was in no condition to even rebuild upon because the foundation was locust post and substandard so he just ended up rebuilding the foundation so that's why it looks brand new. MEMBER GOEHRINGER Okay so that's not part of the Notice of Disaproval so we're just referring to those three things right now.Just to run over this Leslie can I keep on going for a minute. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Just to run over this for one second.The swimming pool has a C.O. on it is that correct? MS. KAZEL:Yes MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay,the main house has a C.O. on it without the addition? MS. KAZEL:Yes. It's under I mean to my knowledge everything else on the property is C.O.'d and legal except for the structures. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Except for the existing one story garage with the addition on it.That doesn't have a C.O.the one closest to the property line. MS. KAZEL:The structure we're here for right now? MEMBER GOEHRINGER :You're here for three structures actually. MS. KAZEL :The existing one story garage is the one that we're here for the relief here tonight? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No we're here for the pool house,we're here for the addition on to the house and the outside porch. M'S, KAZEL: I don't think that the garage that you're referring to that's I don't think that that one has a C.O. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Right that does not have a C.O. so we're here for that too. MS. KAZEL :Yes MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Okay. Excuse me Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Any questions from the Board on this? MEMBER HORNING :Just briefly again how is it that all of this work was done without building permits? MS. KAZEL: Yea I just grabbed a hold of this application last year when the client got a Stop Work Order for the two story building that ironically we're not here for today.The apparently I was asking the contractor the time line this afternoon.The garage was renovated 2 years ago.The covered porch was December 4,2014 Regular Meeting renovated last year.The addition to the house was added on 4 years ago and the pool house was done 2 years ago so over the course of the past 4 years my clients have been renovating or adding these structures on to their property and they are here today to try to ask relief to you know keep and maintain them on their property currently as they are. MEMBER DANTES:Wait can you give me do you have the approximate dates on when some of these structures were built.When I was there it looked like most of them weren't new or any of them all of them were. MS. KAZEL:'The existing structures you mean? Ones that MEMBER DANTES :The when they were originally built. MS. KAZEL That I'm not they're old I mean they're extremely old. I mean by looking at them they have to be at feast 50 years old in my opinion I could find that out for you. I just asked about the dates on the structures that we are here for today. But I know by looking at the photographs you can see that they've been there for a long time. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Let me ask you one question. In your opinion being architect will they all meet standard building codes in order to receive a C.O. ? MS. KAZEL Yes well we actually you know prior to coming to this Board we went out and we drew the existing conditions and the construction documents to legalize the structures.So we've already inspected them and done all the structural calculations on the way that they've been built. So they all have perfect foundations up to code. Most of them are used as storage or unheated space.The only little tiny piece that we're talking about that's habitable that we would have to deal with the insulation codes is the 573 foot addition that was built on to the house 4 years ago and that would meet code too including the NYS energy code so you know in terms of the structure and the NYS building code yes they would all meet code and they would have to because if we were granted a grant by this Board then we would have to go to the Building Department and give them construction drawings and if they weren't brought up to code at that point then they would have to be. Upon our inspection and our construction drawings they are currently. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : 570 square feet is the only thing to cause insulation. MS. KAZEL:Yes because do you see on there's two parts to the addition to the one and half story framed house. 573 square feet of it is family room and living room and the other 380 square feet of that is just a covered porch so it's not considered habitable. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : But it still needs a C.O. MS. KAZEL Yes MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Sorry I just want to get that down. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Leslie, Could I just go on the record that they have a PreCO for a one family structure with 4 accessory buildings yeah it says one family dwelling with 4 accessory buildings.That's in 1976. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now the existing side yard was 9 feet 7 inches so the addition reduced that by 3 feet.This is a 9 acre parcel. MS. KAZEL :if I just may say one thing because of the odd shape of it you know the structures in the required side yard you know I think were mainly triggered by two things. One being the odd shape of the parcel and the second thing being that they're altering existing structures altering or adding on to existing structures to try to minimize the new foundation work and the environmental impact of that so not(inaudible)was right but they were going to put them somewhere I think in the existing place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Well given the setback from Bridge Lane and the fact that really I think that's actually only one;residential structure that's going to have any visual oversight onto the property at all. What's going on there is very internal to the specifics of the site rather than externally impacting any adjacent properties.Yeah cause one of these variance is the pool house in the side yard is a consequence of the addition to the house well it's conforming actually until that addition was put on. I don't have any further questions. Does anyone else have anything else or ask or enter into the question. Anyone else in the audience would like to address this application. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Well let me just ask this last question. For anything in storage is going to remain storage? MS. KAZEL Yes MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Including the new building that's under construction? MS. KAZEL:Yes. I mean anyone that's been to-the site can see that they have a lot of things that they need to store and I know they're trying to clean up all of that stuff you know by putting it all away into these buildings. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Well the new building is although it's not part of this Notice of Disaproval here I mean we're asked to legalize that so that that can all the rest of them so that can continue but that's a sophisticated building I mean it has an outside stairway going to a second floor. I mean it has a brand new foundation. It has a huge overhang on the outside okay. MS. KAZEL:Well I don't think they would be adverse to covenanting that it be used for storage use only. They've never told me otherwise that they planned on converting that. I wouldn't want to give that up for them but if that's a concern it's going to change the nature of the application I mean it's really not even on the calendar today like it's not even part of the call. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No but it's like a hanging part it's over here December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MS. KAZEL: I 'know I know but yes I know that their intent is to keep it the storage building that it always was.They have no intention of turning that into a second dwelling or any kind of accessory building with habitable space and if they did they would have to come back to this Board. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anyone in the audience. No further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Second MS. KAZEL:Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER HORNING:Aye MEMBER SCHNEIDER :Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye (See Minutes for Resolution. ) HEARING#6808—JOAN COOKE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Joan Cooke#6808 this is a request for Variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 28, 2014 amended September 5,2014 Notice of Disaproval based on an application for building permit to construct additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling, at; 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet,3)less than the minimum code required side yard setback of 10 feet,4) less than the code required total side yard setback of 25 feet,5) more than the code permitted lot coverage of 20%, located at 2205 Bay Avenue East Marion,NY. SCTM#1000-31-17-6 This project is amended existing building permit for additions and alterations. Let me go over what the 5 variances,are.The front yard setback is proposed at 16.8 feet where the code requires 35 feet.A rear yard setback at 25.6 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet.The single side yard setback of 5.9 feet where the code requires 10 feet minimum.A combined side yard setback of 16 feet 1 inch plus or minus where the code requires a minimum of 25 feet and the fifth is for lot coverage of 29.2%where the code permits a maximum of 20%this is existing.The parcel is preexisting non-conforming constrained in all directions by various wetlands and other things that I'm sure you will tell us about. This is for the rehabilitation of the existing house changing a roofline of shed (inaudible) and a deck at 12 feet by 8 feet with a 4 by 4 foot landing which is preexisting and would be replaced in kind.There's 6a, December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting no proposed expansion of the existing dwelling and it's going to be raised to FEMA compliance and it has a crawl space (inaudible). BRUCE ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the client Joan at 2205 Bay Ave. As you know on October 29`h 2012 we had Hurricane Sandy struck Long Island with high tidal surges and high winds and vulnerable in particular are those properties and those dwellings that were built which were non-conforming with respect to applicable FEMA regualtions. FEMA stands for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and they regulate the elevation of floors to protect structures from storm surges and other storm related damages.The application of the FEMA regulations and the NYS Building Code would result in a first floor elevation which would have a minimum elevation of 8 feet. That is because it is in an A elevation 6 FEMA zone and the state uniform Building code would require an additional 2 feet of what they call free board. However the property is not at 8 feet.The first floor elevation is not at 8 feet. It's at 4.95 feet and so the dwelling was severely damaged by Hurricane Sandy. So,what we're proposing to do is to elevate the home. Pour concrete foundation then set the house back on top of that poured reinforced concrete foundation.And the result the first floor elevation would be at 11 feet.What results is a basement or actually an elevated crawl space underneath it that would feature the appropriate hydrostatic openings. It would be non-habitable and unconditioned used for storage.As part of that,the applicant would remove the shed roof over the front of the building which measures 7 feet 4 inches by 16 foot 8 inches and replace it with a gabled roof. Remove the shed roof on the rear of the building which measures 13.2 inches by 18 feet and replace that with a gabled roof. Redo the deck with the landings and the stairs as the chairwoman just described.The applicant applied for and received a permit from the NYS DEC permit these activities.Another permit from Southold Town Trustees also authorizing the elevation as described.The applicant proceeded to apply for a Building Permit and obtained a Building Permit that permit was issued on February 27, 2014.The contractor then proceeded to gut the house prepare it for it's elevation with the building permit in hand and prior to it's elevation the contractor discovered and realized that the overall floor elevations of the existing house would have to be uniformed in order to properly set the house down upon it's new foundation.This house is actually built in three sections over time.The first section is that space that measures roughly the 7 feet 4 inches by the 16.8 inches which was once an open porch area that was subsequently enclosed.The floor of the porch was pitched to shed rain which is how open porches are so that if rain water came in through the screen it would shed outside of the dwelling so that front section of the house by design is pitched the floor is pitched to shed that water.There is a central portion of the house and there's a rear portion of the house and the rear portion of the house is about an inch or two lower than the central portion. So what the contractor is trying to do is he's trying to get everything on the same level and so he goes and he speaks to the building inspector about that.Then at that point the building inspector says wait a second you have gabled roofs here when previously you has shed roofs. And the answer to that is well because if I have the floor that's slightly pitched to shed the water and I straighten it my doorway no longer complies because when I pull that call it the exterior edge of that space up flat I run out of room for the entrance doorways.That's why he put the gabled roof on it. It gives you more vertical distance in which to properly redo the access doors,front and rear. So in the front the pitch is about 4 inches and so the gable roof was applied for it was approved and we probably December 4,2014 Regular Meeting wouldn't be here if the builder hadn't discussed this with the building department at that point they realized we had gabled roofs. MEMBER DANTES :Do any of these actions change the existing setbacks at all? BRUCE ANDERSON : No no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible)the height(inaudible)the proposed roof BRUCE ANDERSON :you mean as proposed?21 feet 3 inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 21 and 3 from grade to BRUCE ANDERSON :To top of the roof.You're supposed to do from mid gable but from the very top is 21. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :And from grade to the first floor habitable floor what's that elevation what's that height? BRUCE ANDERSON : 8 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 8 feet okay. So the steps go from grade up. BRUCE ANDERSON :That's correct.So the applicant and the representatives CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Sorry to interrupt you one second. Member Horning has to leave now to catch the ferry back to Fishers Island so otherwise he'll miss the boat and it's a long swim so we encourage him to make the ferry and it's cold.We didn't want you to think that he's bored and leaving for that reason so thank you George. I'll brief him on what happens afterwards. Please continue, sorry for the interruption. BRUCE ANDERSON :The other important point is the substitution of the gabled roofs in lieu of then existing shed roofs do not constitute a demolition so in case that comes up and that building inspector has already made that determination.The record research also led the building department conclude that the rear deck was constructed by a prior owner and never got a permit. It was built on top of an then existing patio and the owner of the premises had no idea because it was built before she looked at purchase it etc. Based on the property record card it appears that rear deck was constructed two owners ago as well..So we have that as part of what we're doing here. We're going to reconstruct the wood deck in its present location realizing that it will placed a patio that was built 30,40 years ago or maybe even longer than that. So,since we already had a building permit we wanted to obviously build and so I went in and I start to segment the overall project applying 280-104A which reads : "where property in the vicinity is improved with a principal buildings with front yard of less than that required by the provisions of this chapter,the front yard setback shall be the average setback of the existing buildings within 300 feet of the proposed building on the same side of the street within the same use district" and l prepared an analysis which I'm going to hand up to the record that shows what that was. And I submitted that analysis to the Building Department and it turns out that based on the survey December 4,2014 Regular Meeting information they would collect the average setback among adjacent property owners within 300 feet of subject premises of 15.3 feet.The Cooke residence has a setback of 16.8 feet. However, although not specified in that code it is the practice of the building department to limit the 300 feet to the nearest cross street which in this case falls less than 300 feet away.Thus,the properties south of the (inaudible) on the south side of Rabbit Lane were or even Huckleberry Lane cannot applied to such analysis. So when you take those out you wind up with an average setback of 15.8 feet so were actually one foot closer to the front line than the average setbacks of those adjacent properties extending only two the cross streets of Huckleberry and Rabbit.This lot is 3500 sq.ft.The house footprint the one story house the house footprint of 825 sq.ft.The existing front yard setback is 16.8 feet and will remain.Thirty five feet is required we're asking for relief of 18.2 feet.The existing side yard setback on the north is 10.8 feet and complies.The existing setback on the south side side yard setback is 5.9 feet where a minimum of 10 feet is required.So we're asking for relief of 4.1 feet to that side.And then there is an existing total side yard that's supposed to total 25 feet and here what we have is the we are 8.3 feet short of that.So we're asking for that relief.The rear yard of the house is at 37.3 feet(inaudible)with that setback although the deck is at 25.6 feet from the rear lot line.The existing coverage with decks totals 1021 feet or 29.2%of lot area and will remain the same because there is no enlargement other than an extra run of steps required to reach the elevation to the now higher house.So we've read the notice of disapproval I'm not going to reread it but what we're asking for is a variance to authorize construction activity really within a zoning setbacks that were established by code for this non-conforming lot. Nothing in this application results in a further encroachment toward any yard any surrounding yard nor is there a diminishment of total side yard setback nor is.there further non-conformity with respect to lot coverage.The neighborhood in this area is almost entirely made up with residences non-conforming or non-conforming lots and I'have photographs you've seen this before but and maybe it helps the property relationship to others.And if you look at the tax map you'll note that the two properties directly to the north are remarkably similar in size if not exact in size.The immediate property to the south appears to be a double lot etc. We submit to the variance should be granted because there will be no impact to the character of the neighborhood.There's no further encroachment towards any property line and'there's_no increased lot coverage. We submit to the benefit we seek cannot be achieved by any other method other than a variance due to the constrained size, dimensions and geography of the lot. There is insufficient lot area in which to rehabilitate this storm damaged home. We submit to variance requests that are not substantial in relationship to the preexisting setbacks no further encroachment occurs and that lot coverage remains the same and we submit to the hardship is not self-created because we would not be before this board or any other board of agency for that matter if not for the flooding that occurred as the result of hurricane Sandy. So, it's our contention that when we weigh the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted we submit that benefit would outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community.The benefit to the applicant obviously would be suitable rehabilitation of the dwelling to protect it from future flooding events.We submit there is no detriment to the health safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community.That concludes my presentation. MEMBER RANTES : Could I just ask you a quick question about the deck. Do you know have an idea of when they built the deck by any chance? December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : Well the best that I can do I went back to the property record card is in your application it looked to me the owner prior to Cooke had owned the property for a relatively short time and based on its condition I submit that that deck must have been built several years prior to that owner and I gather when Mrs. Cooke bought the property they didn't do an updated C.O.They didn't use local council.They didn't do the normal things that local council would probably make you do in the course of a real estate transaction. So neither I nor the owner knew that the deck was even in play. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bruce,two questions.The FEMA compliance, is that voluntary or is it required by FEMA because of the extent of the renovations? BRUCE ANDERSON : Oh it's required.You have to elevate this house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what I'm asking.I mean I know if you go over certain percentages, value of the house you must. BRUCE ANDERSON Oh yea we are way over that and of course if you go 2 to 3 feet higher it reduces your insurance dramatically. So, most people that elevate to comply with FEMA will if they can as long as they're not violate a height regulation like a zoning height regulation typically make it a couple feet higher than what required just for the benefit the insurance benefit and to protect you from any future remapping which occurs every several you know every few years the areas are remapped. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The existing septic,what's going on with that? BRUCE ANDERSON : Well,we're creating there's going to be fill we are going to lift the septic system. I have Joe Fischetti here with me today who did the foundation designs and is aware of the septic system but since there is no change to the house in terms of its function there's no impact to the septic system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Except that it's in flood zone. It's so strange that BRUCE ANDERSON We wanted to lift it but you know honestly if you were to if you were looking at a vacant lot and you wanted to build a house on this you would wind up with a house that would be probably half the footprint and 2✓z times its height in order to account for the room that a septic system would take up that also being elevated. So what you wind up with really is a rocket ship and so there's really we're not required to do anything with the septic system.We do want to elevate it because we think that's wise to do. It's not part of this application and it has been approved by the wetland authority who regulate septic systems. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Questions? MEMBER RANTES :Sure,we've received some letters from the neighbors,would you like to address those letters at all at this time? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you received copies first of all? BRUCE ANDERSON :Yes, I was just given them, I looked at them as did Joe Fischetti.What I generally gather here is that they may not understand number one is that there is no expansion to the living _- 6,t: December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting portion of the house.We're simply picking up this house and putting it on a taller foundation. So it's going to stick out of the ground and I think it's an aesthetic concern they have and I understand that. I would say that it's not really a matter for zoning because there is no change in setbacks here so much of what I went thru here really is not it's not an irregulatory world it's sort of what(inaudible)would say well a house is going to be higher it's going to lookdifferentl don't like the aesthetic impact of that house but if you really think about it what it would do is it protects the house.There are various environmental improvements built into this such as we already discussed the elevated septic.We already discussed we haven't discussed but the drainage and improvements in control of the town requires of any building permit application and also it has to be that way.This is an old cottage it's supported'by Locust posts you know and in order to do anything with this house you would have to replace the foundation anyway and given that you're in a flood zone you can't just raise it a foot if you think that makes it look nicer.You have to raise it to at least the minimum base flood elevation prescribed in the code.And as I said before we'd like to raise it a little bit more than that when we can because you get cheaper rates, protection from future mappings and it's a better way to better protection strategy for those homes. So,for example if the Laudato's I understand are opposing it.They are adjacent property owners directly to the north. Laudato home was damaged by floods as well I understand it but it was sort of reconstructed'and redone piece by piece as to side step the requirement not to elevate it.So if you were to go down and look at those homes you would be looking at in essence would appear to you a new home. Now the argument might be oh I just put a roof on it. I just put new windows on it. I just put new sidings on it. I just redid the inside. I put in new sheetrock. I painted the sheetrock. I put molding up. I put carpet down.That's all fine and good but probably almost certainly the sum total of those actions would of exceeded 50%of the depreciated value of that home because if the home was built in the 50's it's value would be so limited that you could literally you could do very little to it and not trigger the FEMA response. I'm not saying you did what you did,you got what have and I'm fine with that but that's not a reason to say that your next door neighbor also shouldn't elevate their home.The difference between Laudato and what's going to happen here is one house is going to comply with the flood claim regualtions and the other house is not that being Laudato house and it's going to be flooded at the next storm. It's not for me you're willing to undertake that risk that's not my business but it shouldn't mean that the Cooke residence shouldn't be elevated as to conform. Now, maybe what would be use full is to plant some screening vegetation. I don't think we have an objection to that. But I'll make one other point too the only objections we have are from Laudato and if you look at your survey the one setback that complies with the zoning code is the northern side yard setback at 10.7 feet.That happens to be the setback from the Laudato property. So from a zoning standpoint and a setback standpoint Laudato really doesn't have a zoning argument because A we comply with that setback and B we're not encroaching any closer towards Laudato and that's what I would say. MEMBER DANTE : Also are there other elevated homes in that neighborhood. BRUCE ANDERSON : Oh we've done a ton of them in there. I mean we were in front of you for Chernuska I know Pat Moore did several. I know Joe Fischetti did several. I would say CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) on Rabbit Lane. k L' December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON :Oh yea well we're right around the corner. We consider all that part of the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSONWEISMAN : We know and we tried to get down MEMBER'DANTES: What percentage of the homes would you say are elevated at this point? BRUCE ANDERSON : I'd say more than half. Easily I would say more than half.And the one's that aren't are subject to future flooding events that's the world we live in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an ongoing issue for many properties in town particularly those that you know are in flood zones in particular because a lot of them do require intervention. Now they're older properties and complying with the elevation you know FEMA requirements is very substantial and it does change the character of the neighborhoods we know that it does Kook different but it's there for a very important environmental reason and we have I guess come to grips in some way or another with what those flood zone standards are all about because we live with so much water around us everywhere so many properties are affected and this is where the practicality of the law certainly does create a big aesthetic impact and change. BRUCE ANDERSON :There's no doubt about that and I don't dispute that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think anybody does. BRUCE ANDERSON The issue is the benefit of the applicant versus the detriment to health safety and welfare of the community. If this Board or any other Board would say sorry we don't want you to comply with that law there would certainly be a greater detriment to the public health safety and welfare of the community because the homeowner would not be protecting their homes from flooding. So I'think on balance it should favor the application. CH'AIRPE'RSON WEISMAN :That's really why I asked you earlier if FEMA was triggered by active law rather than a desire on your client's part to elevate the structure for their own protection. In some cases some applicants do if they're going to be rebuilding they're not required to but they do it anyway if they are doing renovations but in the case where you have more than 50%of the value of the house being realized in the cost to the renovation those codes kick in period.They're required by law in order to build. BRUCE ANDERSON :The property record card indicates that the house was built in 1963. It then shows an addition that's probably one maybe the porch or something at$400.You could do almost nothing to the house CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :And it would be triggered. BRUCE ANDERSON :That's right. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address the application. We'd like to hear from you.Why don't you come to the microphone either one and just state your name for the record. JULIE LAUDATO :Hi. My name is Julie Laudato and I did write a letter opposing it. Number 1 the Bay Ave bridge is closed down right now so this is a summer cottage community.All the homes on Bay Ave are single level.There's no second story to any of them.The ones from the bridge down to the water.so none of the neighbors are there cause no one lives there after Labor Day. It's all closed down.You have to shut down the pipes or everything will freeze. So I only found out less than two weeks ago when I received a letter in the mail as did my one neighbor but everyone else in the neighborhood is unaware. We did talk to some of the people but they had no idea what we were talking about.As far as FEMA is concerned I spoke to FEMA people the day after the flood. I was down there. I maintained the homeowners insurance and the flood insurance on my property however, my neighbor Mrs. Cooke did not. She let her property insurance lapse. She let the flood'insurance lapse and she had told myself that she had told my other neighbor that. I wasn't aware that we were allowed to remodel our homes or raise our homes.We went by the guidelines set forth by the Town and by FEMA. No one had told that we should raise the houses that we were allowed to raise the houses. It wasn't even an option.The insurance company had said fix it take pictures so we did as we were told and we cleaned up and we repaired the houses to the best of our abilities with the guidance from the Town and I mean I appreciate all the assistance that the Town of Southold gave to the neighborhood.We called you often.You helped us.You told us what to do.You helped us get people in the area to help us but my concern is that if you're going to build such a tall structure in such a low lyeing area with such small houses next to it not only is it yes aesthetically going to look bad but how is that going to prevent it from flooding again. It could flood again. I mean the Hamptons flood all the time, houses were swept away.You know so to put it up that high and to definitely encroach on my home and the surrounding homes is not going to stop that house from flooding.And also she needs to maintain her insurance.She could of fixed her home right away as did everyone else. Her cousin is one house away from me. He fixed his home right away. We all immediately did what the Town told us to do.What our insurance companies told us to do and what FEMA told us to do. And FEMA was really of no help to any of us because these are second homes. They only help you if they're primary residence.So I thank you for helping us during this whole thing and I hope you'll continue to help us do the right thing. We're very concerned about the environment as the Town of Southold always is. We're concerned about our homes. We've been there for quite some time now and we follow the guidelines you set forth and I hope you know we can all continue to do the right thing.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anyone else? Please state your name for the record. FRANCES FIORI : Good afternoon,thank you for having me. My name is Frances Fiori. I live at 8 Woodvale Ave in Kings Park NY. I own the property at 3S Rabbit Lane in East Marion which is the corner piece of property on Bay Ave to Rabbit Lane. I have approximately I believe .71 of an acre of property there. I bought the house and when I bought my home there it definitely wasn't what I wanted. It was where I wanted to be. It was a place that I've known since the day I was born. I was out there three weeks after I was born and I've summered out there on that block every year since. When I bought the December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting property I have a roof that slants. I have things that l would love to do but when I bought it I checked with the Town and they told me basically what you bought you bought. I had a lawyer come. I got the C.O.from the Town. I know for a fact on this property that the cesspool in the back yard I know they said they're gonna fix it lift it up but I had to go thru the same thing cause when I bought the house they gave me the C.O.the very next month I had water coming in sewage coming in my basement so I called the I think it was Morris Cesspool. He came and it ended up I didn't have a cesspool. So what I had to do and the Town basically at first told me we don't think you could put a cesspool in there. So now I just bought a house and I can't put a cesspool in there but what we had to do is we had to go get the approval get everything done and we had to put our cesspool on the top.They basically came I wasn't there when they did it but I was told how they did it they put it on the ground and they put a big mound of dirt all around it which I was mortified. My neighbors I felt bad cause now you got a big hill there. It just didn't look correct.So, on this property I know for a fact because she was asking me about the cesspool and she goes across the street to her mother's house to use her bathroom that her cesspool fills up. She had it pumped it filled up the same day.The level of water there is 1.7 feet in some areas of that property and it's my property I know 100 feet back I can't do anything the Town the Trustees do it you know handle that. But you could go back there when I walk in the morning to look at the lake the water shoots up the ground and hits me.That's what I bought I was told I can't do nothing I'm not going to do anything. I'm happy I hope my kids get that house. Hope it stays that way.So when it rains there we get the water coming down from the bridge. It comes into my property and it floods that whole area right. Right next to her house under her house and by my house you can see there's the grass is there it's all doesn't grow and it's basically mud.So now if you turn around and I just want to get something straight I don't want stop anyone or stand in the way of anyone fixing their house. She deserves to enjoy her house as much as you or I or anyone else but there is a lot more to this story. Now,just I'm not a builder or anything but if you put the concrete underneath the house and raise the house 11 feet it's not required to be 11 feet. I understand the law and you have to obey the law whether you agree with it or you don't agree with it that's unfortunate for me for anyone.That's what we have to do and it is a real problem the flooding right. I was fortunate I didn't get water in my house. She did get some water in her house but now all this water that comes there MEMBER DANTES :What elevation is your house at? FRANCES FIORI : I'm 35. MEMBER DANTES : No,what elevation I mean how many feet above FRANCES FIORI : I believe that mine is 7. I'm saying 7 1 think when they came for the to do the flood insurance and they came and inspected the house I had to change my flood insurance.They looked at it and I believe they said 7 but they said that it was whatever.They didn't make a big deal out of it. I didn't push it. When the storm came in I got water in the crawl space area and you know the usual things. I stored my stuff under the house. I lost a lot of personal property is what I lost my water heater different things I was considering myself fortunate. But now if you put the cement on cement foundation on cement floor basically under the house that's removing more dirt more area where water at least go down a little bit. Go down into the ground. Now it's going to be all covered in.cement.They're raising it 69 , December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 11 feet.FEMA is not requiring to raise it 11 feet.They are only required to raise it 8 feet but I guess it lowers the premium to raise it up higher.They had the deck in the back yard they're going to raise it 14 feet high. It's up to my roofline and my house practically right?And now where do they put the stairs in the front of the house when they have to make an 11 foot elevation where do they put them right and then there's a lot more to be known about this thing.We're just hearing well the house has been there for years_ It doesn't make a difference.They're raising it 11 feet,they're putting in a door going to bottom for storage.So if your primary concern is damage why would you store your stuff under the house? I learned my lesson,twenty something thousand dollars of a lesson when I lost bicycles and all sorts of things underneath there.That added up quite quickly. So now we're gonna have a thing with windows,a door and everything else and a deck that's going to be 11 feet or 14 feet whatever it may be right? Nobody knows about this. When this when she first came with her house I felt terrible for this woman. I used to do her lawn all the time. I even offered I brought all of the stuff from the storm to the dump.That house and my house were never the Taj Mahal. It's a simple cabin is what it is.You go there you enjoy it that's it. It's not a luxury thing and it was never meant to be.You go there she always complained about what after the stuff came the storm she got the water in the house.The water didn't cause the roof to be gabled and everything else and cause all this work.The house was basically old falling apart>unmaintained just like a lot of those houses that were there but people maintained them. Now under the guise of sandy they're turning around and damage that was not done by sandy damage that was done by time, neglect, poor foresight they're going to change.So now they need a huge building permit they need to fix all stuff and gable roofs raise it up high right?The siding wasn't even off that house.The siding didn't come off they pulled the siding off.The son was in there one day hitting the walls with a sledge hammer to vent the walls out. I offered my help not charging. I offered as a neighbor to help her out so did other people to get the stuff out to open up a window.She didn't do anything not even open up the window get it at least maybe it would dry out.This has been going on for two years. Like I said nobody wants that house to be up and running more than I do and I this has bothered me coming here cause I'm not that type of person to come here but I feel that we're getting taken advantage of.When you compare first he said that he couldn't compare the houses only in that area to Rabbit Lane. Rabbit Lane is a different ballgame. Rabbit Lane are big homes on big pieces of property.One side they're on the water and as far as the aesthetics of that I don't think you could find another area that's like where those cabins are and to come by a see a monstrosity of 11 feet high it's bad enough at'8 but 8 is the law so that has to be done but to go up 11 and then fill the ground in too so you get a couple more feet by filling it up and then go up 11 you're gonna have an eyesore a basic eyesore there and that's a community amongst itself. I don't think it can be compared to anywhere else and what happens now and it's I guess it is my business as a person this thing fills up with water and you have blow out walls so her house if fairly close if that blows out what's it gonna do come out in full force against her house where's the water gonna go?Where's the rain water gonna go when you fill with cement and now you put a big staircase in front?Where does she park her car now?Where does she have off street parking or anything cause that gets crowded.That used to be a quiet nobody went down there. On a Saturday and Sunday you get people bringing their kayaks,you get families from up the block coming down bringing their stuff going to the beach.You come out and sometimes there's cars all over the place.Where is she going to park the cars?And then now another thing was when I got the December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting thing I've been listening to this woman and I felt bad for her. She kept telling me the house the contractor did this.The town did that and you feel bad. I was able I didn't have much damage fortunately we got to move in our house. It cost us money and time but what are you gonna do. She tells me how everything is going bad and everything else and then she has the subtle hints what she asks me about my property if I can sell or give 15 feet of her property.This is a while back cause then she could put build her house.This is before the storm so this is been going on before the storm.The storm is just a convenience and I'm not selling my property. I'm not giving away my property so she is well aware of all of this as well as I am well aware of my restrictions but I chose to get involved with it and I gotta live by what the rules are and it's unfortunate and if I sound like a bad person I am not. I would love to see a fixed house up but in all honesty to say you have to lift it 8 feet by law but I'm gonna go up more height so I can get cheap whatya call it insurance or storm down the road we may never have a storm again. We may have one tomorrow who knows right?i like saving money I'm sure everyone else does but I don't like to do it at the expense of a beautiful area and to my neighbors. I was brought up to be different and this is just a complete outrage.To go by there when I started looking into this cause people told me about this I called up a couple of people on Bay Avenue yesterday and told them this is a problem and I think that you'd be interested in this.They were there was one fellow that was supposed to come but I guess he couldn't make but people couldn't get off of work and our notification was the letter which we've been getting things for the last two years and she's been calling me up saying she's gonna do different things with the house. When I first got it I said good she's finally making headway till I find out that all this stuff is going to happen and put a door and windows in and everything else in this supposed crawl space 11 foot high is not a crawl space that's adding a first floor to the home and if it is a two story home it's gonna have stairs up to the second story where you go in and then the door she's putting in she'd have to open up how is she even going to get in there's like this much room between the property. My biggest concern is the flooding that's existant now every time it rains not even a big rain when I went there yesterday it was flooded. It's soft and flooded.There's nothing you can do unless you fill it in and you can't do that.You'd have to fill it in God knows only how high. So now when you put a cement foundation and block off that existing dirt plus stairs in the front and put your new deck in and everything else it's gonna look great but what are you gonna do with the cesspool cause it's 1.7 feet of (inaudible)you can't put a birm around it and it floods already so now it's going to flood worse so it's not an innocent thing going on. It's going to affect me. It's going to affect her. It's going to affect everybody who drives down that block and it's a pity cause that's a beautiful area and it's one of a kind. Thank you very much. I hope that you really take this seriously and consider it and like I said myself and I think I speak for everybody else. We're not against her going in her home but what we are against is excessively going about it and making things higher than it has to be so that you can save money. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you very much FRANCES FIORI :Thank you I appreciate it. JULIE LAUDATO : Since she decided to let her insurance lapse after she purchased the home is there a way to insure that someone would keep their insurance so that in the event that something like this ever happened again if there ever was another act of nature that you would have the means to be able to repair your home? December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:That's not really within the purview of the Zoning Board. We can't really impress what private property owners JULIE LAUDATO : Because I believe she could of if she kept up with her insurance like everyone else repaired it. I mean we all called the Town that next day.What do we do, how do we do it you know everybody helped us. Well call this guy to get a dumpster and these are the names of good contractors and you know we just followed everyone's guidelines everybody helped us. We couldn't of done it without the Town's help. MEMBER DANTES:That's more of a question for an attorney or an insurance representative. It's not a really something you can address here. JULIE LAUDATO : Ok.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Any comments or questions from the Board at this point? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bruce or Joe did you guys want to address any of the JOE FISCH'ETTI :To clarify and maybe keep Joseph Fischetti professional engineer Southold.Just to clarify and maybe make them feel a little better.This is an AE Zone not a V Zone. It is designed so that any hydrostatic.pressure within that flooding will be equalized with flood vents on either side so that when the flood comes up the basement will flood equally on both sides so there's no blow outs of the walls. When the flood goes down there are flood vents on both sides that designed that way so that there's no differential pressure on the walls. Walls will not blow out. Secondly,the sanitary the cesspool in the back will be raised and will work better if it's a couple of feet out of the water. I'll be here if you have any questions. MEMBER DANTES :Joe,sorry can you just describe in detail the work about raising the septic. JOE FISCHETTI : No, it's just a matter of raising it.Just putting another we don't have to go to the Health Department.There is no change in bedroom counts.We've received approvals. It's an existing system in the ground.We're allowed by Health Department to repair in kind and we're going to repair that by raising it as much as we can within the confines of that lot.Make it as better than it is now.That's our intent. I don't know what we'll be able to do until we're in there and we look at it. I think the grade if I remember I haven't looked at the grades are 3 and 4 in that back area. So, if we have 1 if he says we have a grade at 1.4 we could get a cesspool up a couple of feet higher than it is now and be out of the water so that you're not flooding it. Anything that's better than it is now. MEMBER DANTES : One more question whoever wants to can one of you address one of the neighbors had a concern about parking,just describe what your plans are for parking. BRUCE ANDERSON : If you look at the aerial that I handed up and we'll look at the adjacent property of Laudato you'll see that the houses line up like soldiers up along that road.What do people do?They 7 December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting park in their front yards.They park on the road's shoulders.You have a 3500 square foot lot you don't have much other choice.So the parking situation here is no different than it is anywhere else nor is it exasperated any differently than any other place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. FRANCES FIORI : I just wanted to say if he's saying about lifting the cesspool up how much higher is that going to go and then you have to go even higher if you're going to raise the back yard to accommodate the cesspool. I'm sure you're not going to have a pile of dirt there and it's not big enough because they told me the minimum and the Town was who told me when they came and inspected the property it had to be 20 feet around is what you need when you put it in.They don't have 20 feet around.She came over she asked me before the storm about putting it on my property. I don't want it on my property. First of all l don't think it will work and I don't want it on my property. I said no.And this wasn't her thing this was people who were coming there telling her you have to put in the front of the house,you have to put it under the house,you have to put it here. People didn't know what they could do with it. And also with the parking, right now those houses they have minimal parking that you could fit two cars in there.When you have stairs that have to bring you up to 11 feet high how far are they going to come back on that property? How far do you need to get up 11 feet?She's not gonna have a ladder. I believe she's having two landings coming out.So that takes away we're saying oh now she can park her car there.Yes she can now but can she when she puts all this in? Like I said my biggest beef is the flooding, the large deck being towering high in the back. I can't see and you know what when it comes to a cesspool it's better than we have now. [don't think that's an answer cause the cesspools are the biggest thing on long island. It's destroying Long Island.So to say you know it will be better what do you get two flushesinstead of one? I don't get it. MEMBER DANTES :Sir the thing with cesspools is the Town in very limited.We don't really regulate it it's more a County issue. FRANCIS FIORI Ok do I have to notify the Health Department with this? MEMBER DANTES : I don't know. I just know for us and the Board we have very very little regulations on the cesspools. FRANCIS FIORI : Ok CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wish we did. FRANCIS FIORI : I know it's a terrible thing the cesspools. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For all of our sakes (inaudible) is a real real problem for all of us. 731 December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting FRANCIS FIORI :Very bad idea. Ok thank you but there is no parking once you put 11 foot and there's no mention of the stairs.There's no mention whatsoever of how big the stairs are going to be. Even if you took like my home I was looking today in Kings Park the second floor stairs going up I don't what is it 8 feet or whatever they're pretty big. So if you put them in the front I don't know (inaudible) be an elevator. It's just crazy.Thank you. CHAIRPERSONWEISMAN : Bruce if you'd like to say anything. BRUCE ANDERSON :The only thing I would add is there is no impact to parking as a result of this project. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anything else? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't see anything else that we are going to need to ask for to get from anybody so we can just close reserve decision. FRANCIS FIORI : I'm sorry I have one more question.This was asked of me a while ago I just want to put it on the record and I believe you feel the same but that's up to you to say.She when she was saying about fixing her home she said they're gonna have to put some trucks and things on your property so as a good neighbor I said ok that's fine right? But you know what I don't see how they this project can even be done without her cooperation and my cooperation and you know what I worked hard on-my lawn over there try to get it fine and everything else and I'm really she's not thinking of me or her or anyone. She's thinking of herself and her convenience to modernized her home. I really don't want anyone on my property.And I will post a sign or I will put a fence up whatever I'm allowed to do. I will check first but I don't want trucks or any workers on my property because I do not want to assume the liability.And I've been told by the dirt guy who came who's putting it in "Oh you don't mind if I put this here?" No that's fine but it isn't fine anymore.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You are under no obligation as to allow FRANCES FIORI : (inaudible) speaking from seating.Says in the report(inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't mean to cut you off but you need to be in front of the microphone in order to speak because this is an official record and we record it so we want to make sure that everyone's concerns are properly in our record and if people are not at the microphone we can't be certain that all the comments were you know FRANCIS FIORI : I just want to say in the past she's asked if people can put the car there and I had I guess it was the first guy that was designing it came and asked me about it and I did say yes but I was told they were fixing up her house as is. In light of all these things and the 11 foot high thing to make her insurance cheaper for her and everything else almost like it's brownie points for the insurance company I do not want anybody trespassing on my property and I will put a fence or a sign or I'll have my lawyer December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting notify him and whoever else is working there and her of such thing.They are not allowed on my property.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you very much. Bruce question from me. You've heard the neighbors fundamental concern about the elevation the height of the structure and that the base FEMA requirement is 8 foot elevation. BRUCE ANDERSON :That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You are proposing 11. BRUCE ANDERSON :That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. How would you feel given comments from the neighbors about reducing it to 8 feet? BRUCE ANDERSON : It's not a question of how I feel the question of how the client feels and I will relay those concerns to her and I would say let her provide you with a letter as to what her feelings are.That's not Zoning I'm not here for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand it's just obviously as you know very well one of our standards is the character the neighborhood potential adverse impacts and how to mitigate them (inaudible) raising the issue with your client might be a reasonable thing to do. BRUCE ANDERSON: I understand what l would suggest you do is condition it with some screening. Plant arow of arborvitaes or red cedar or evergreen of some sort to landscape it that's what I would do if 1 were in your shoes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's BRUCE ANDERSON:And those are normal things to require. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:Screening on larger lots is never a problem on very small lots evergreen screening in order to be effective has to be fairly substantial.Then sometimes that can become very overbearing on small properties that you know have little bitty lots and you start boxing them in. It also alters the visual appearance of the neighborhood that's basically kind of open and informal.So you are absolutely right this is not unusual for the Zoning Board to (inaudible) privacy by requiring screening to protect adjacent neighbors. It's something we can consider. BRUCE ANDERSON : Well I'd tell you for example where I live in my own home okay we have we park we pull into the garage area from the side.The parking area is within 4 yea nah 5 feet or so from the property line although not required by any Board or agency we do landscape that area and when the storm hit and blew down some arborvitaes we went and put it back at our expense. I mean that's what neighbors do so if it's not something that is required maybe it's something that neighbors can work out amongst themselves. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN It doesn't sound like it. Hold on one sec. I just I'm just trying to listen carefully to what everyone is saying and attempting to weigh the options and explore what those might be.That's all. Okay. FRANCES FIORI Where her house is to put the trees there like you said you it is beautiful there you have the lake you have the water you couldn't ask for a better spot.So besides that where you come out and now you have massive trees there I want to put I have a tree you've been there so you know my property I'have that old gazebo there. I had a tree that was there and I kept tying it up tying it up to keep it up and the tree finally from the wind was gone. I put another tree in front of the gazebo after l asked her if it was okay that it wouldn't interfere with any of her stuff I put it in I planted it. It got root rot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The ground is so saturated FRANCES FIORI : It's water. It's planted in your bathtub is what it's like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We know the property well we know Marion Lake we know FRANCES FIORI : I'm sure you do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's very saturated. FRANCES FIORI : If she put the trees that would be substantial to block this and you put like an evergreen or a white pine like you're saying those are wide trees so she doesn't even have the property to grow something like that.You know it would be over and it doesn't have the soil or anything else it's just ridiculous. JOE FISCHETTI :Yes I will answer it at the mic.You're question was lowering it down. If the crawl space that we designed we designed the finished floor at 11 feet because of FEMA we have to keep the concrete slab at elevation 3 or 4, 3%-4 it's actually about 3%Z .The crawl space in that area is about 6%2 feet. If you lower it 3 feet it is very low and very difficult to do construction underneath there to put any duct work in to work on it so this is really minimum. Maybe if she would be willing a foot but 3 feet is really that crawl space is very difficult to work on. MEMBER DANTES : How much higher is the finished elevation that's its currently the first floor? JOE FISCHETTI :The first floor is probably about 4 elevation 4.9 MEMBER RANTES : Five are you going to elevation 11 you're going so that's an increase of 8 JOEFISCHETTI : Because it's only a few feet the grade there is about 3 so it's only a little bit of it's these are locust posts just slightly above grade. MEMBER DANTES : So your planning on going up less than one story?So it's a 6 foot increase? JOE FISCHETTI : Yeah, it's to raise the first to raise the whole house it's not a story we're just December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : No it's you say elevation 11 a lot of people get confused it's a lot higher going up a lot higher than it really is. JOE FISCHETTI : So we're working on about 3%anda grade of about 3 Meet.So we go up 6%Z feet we're at the bottom of the joists now then another foot is you're at 11 so to lower it 3 feet when we first talked to her about it to make this work I said the crawl space is really too low I don't like having guys work in the crawl space of 3 feet.They're under there and you can't even put duct work in there. If you wanted it I don't know what she's going to do with heat or anything like that so minimum is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :What the neighbor's concern is cause people do get confused about what the elevation is and the actual feet from the ground. JOE FISCHETTI : Height above ground yes always a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Up to the first floor so let's once again reiterate in the record from where the ground is stairs go up they hit the first habitable floor that first habitable floor from the grade is how many feet off the ground? JOE FISCHETTI : 7 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 7 feet off the ground. BRUCE ANDERSON : Understand that's inconclusive of the floor joist finished floor etc.so you wind up with a space it's about 6 feet. JOE FISCHETTI : 6%2 feet BRUCE ANDERSON Okay. It's not a habitable space.There's no interior stairs between that space and the floor above. It's a crawl space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So it's basically from the ground the first floor of which there's going to be stairs to a''landing to a deck.There's going to be 6 feet off the ground.Correct? JOE FISCHETTI : Let's just say we could get greater than 3,3% (inaudible) is 11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :And the overall height of the house is 21 feet from the ground to the top of the ridge. BRUCE ANDERSON :That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Now,the code permits in this town by law 35 feet height maximum or two story two and half story house not three story two story house is what's permitted by code. So they are not before us for a height variance.The 21 feet is permitted. But the concern primarily of the neighbors is to not go beyond what FEMA requires you to do based on the cost of the renovations and add to the height primarily because there are other cottages that still remain very modest and very low to the ground and the neighbors feel that it would have very visually adverse impact on what they're used to December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting calling their neighborhood. Now,you may see more houses in future wanting to be up elevated as a consequence of a lot of you know dramatic storm episodes.This is a problem all over the Town.We're facing it in neighborhoods everywhere. BRUCE ANDERSON : It's a problem all over the country. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah. But we have so much water around us right here that and it's a small area let's face it.We live in a fragile environment and it's narrow it's small and we're all neighbors out here. I mean we all live here.We know the properties yes and we got a lot of things we built way before we knew what the heck we were doing cause it was beautiful and now we are living with the consequences of building too close to wetlands and ground water and nitrogen loading and all these other things and the laws will change over time to reflect how to live as sustainably as possible in a fairly fragile environment.So,this is one example that we're going to see this Board is seeing more and more of and we need and listen very carefully to guidance from neighbors that's why we have public hearings and each site each application is very specific to a site.So,while you may say as a good neighbor Bruce that you screened something off it may be very appropriate where you live but it may not be appropriate in another neighborhood where people are used to open vistas and the lots are tiny and they don't want to feel you know contained this way so that's why we go and visit every site. We look at the neighborhood and we have proper full information before us in order to make the best possible balancing test. I think we've heard everything. BRUCE ANDERSON :We had a building permit for this foundation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes I understand that. I understand. Okay then I'm going to pull the plug on this FRANCES FIORI : I apologize but I just want to make sure that I stress about the flooding that already exists by with rainfall that's not even that bad and it's been like that for as long as I can remember. If you cement that to put a basement floor in there when the water has no place to go and it comes up against the cinder blocks and used to drain down at least you're taking away I don't know the exact size of the house it's already a tiny lot we already have a run off from the road problem and the water table being so high removing some dirt. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me interrupt you one sec because I'm not an absolute expert on this either. But what you're saying is understandable.The Zoning Board insists on variance relief that all applications are going to have to comply with the Town's drainage code. We have the chapter in our code that requires certain things about retention of water on the site and so on. FRANCES FIORI :That will not comply and already I've called the town about the water coming in.When we get those major storms the water comes down the street like you wouldn't believe from the bridge hopefully it will be (inaudible) it comes down it comes in there. So it goes under her house and her back yard everywhere else and it eventually goes down. Now when you have cement there it's the same as building a parking lot.The water comes in where does it go.You have a sewer maybe it'll go down but not if you in an already problematic area now you're putting more cement you're covering it up and 'r December 4,2014 Regular Meeting then like he said we're concerned with the height and with deck. Now you have a deck that there was and I'm not even going to that's petty with the no permit for the deck but now it's going to be up high. What if it was(inaudible) and equal with hers something else now when you go outside you don't have someone walking down them right and what about a dirt floor so at least the water came in and it can dissipate. Now when it comes in it has nowhere to go it'll just back up on my property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let me ask that question for you okay I'll ask this one last question. Either Joe or Bruce can you build this on pilings without concrete slab?And if so what would the difference be? JOE FISCHETTI : He's not understanding the hydraulics of water. Now he's saying that if the water comes up and it'doesn't,go underneath her house his property is going to flood because it doesn't have any plane to go down because it doesn't go under her property.That is completely it's completely wrong. It doesn't matter.The water hydrology will find its level. Especially when it we had the same problem with the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund. When I designed the sanitary system it was going to be 4 foot high they said Oh when you gonna build that sanitary system this high you're going to push all the water out to the neighborhood.You're talking about hydraulic pressure it's going to find its level wherever that level is because that level goes horizontally.Just because I put a block in the middle here or l took out a small section of water because she has a basement that's not allowing water to flow under it is not going to impact his property. It just will not. Hydrology doesn't go that way because we're talking about acres and area and hydrology.Just doesn't happen and I will not do piles. Piles are not good.This is not required. It's not a V Zone. It's a concrete it's a much better foundation. It's easier to construct.We don't have the ability to move the house out because we have to put piles in now. Cause where am I going to move the house.Will he let me put the house on his property to move it over? No. I have to lift it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold hold hold it. I'm sorry. JOE FISCHETTI : So, no pile CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : First you have to address the Board. JOE FISCHETTI : Piles won't work cause I can't move the house. I don't have the ability to move the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I just wanted to get a response from your point of view. Honestly sir we've really really spent a lot of time on this. If you have one more comment please enter it into the record and make it short.We have another hearing coming up. FRANCES FIORI : Okay it seems maybe he did misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not talking about a hurricane Sandy event or a hurricane or anything like that. I'm talking about normal rainfall over the summer.That water when it comes in it floods my area already. It floods there and it goes under her house all that water.At least it has somewhere to go. Now when you put the cement there for example if I'm getting 100 gallons which is not 100 it's a lot more now say 100 went under her thing now I'm i December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting getting 200 because it's not going to enter her basement and come out thru the vents. Maybe in a major storm but not a regular rainfall. It's going to flood out my property and the street worse. If you go by there go by there today the street is filled with water from the rain yesterday flooded out in front of our houses.So, it's bad now when you take an area that at Least has some drainage it's going to be a lot worse and I'm not talking about a hurricane I'm talking about a regular rainfall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. JULIE LAUDATO:The concrete that's going to be underneath the house is this solid orjust concrete piers with openings in between and I mean large openings where the water can go underneath because there is a lot of flooding there. I know exactly what he's talking about. I was caught in a storm at his house and had a hard time even getting two houses over. Within about 10 minutes we had over afoot and a half of water in the street. Is it solid? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will ask Mr. Fischetti to address the design of the foundation to answer your question. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Would you please emphasize the vents so they understand the water comes in and it goes out. MR. FISCHETTI :There are I have to say if the flooding goes above the 3 foot level there are flood vents that are we ones I like to use are smart vents which automatically open and close. So if the flood comes above because we have the vents at 1 foot above grade which is about 4 feet which is a about a foot above where the grade is now. If the water comes above 1 foot those vents will open and will flood through they automatically flow through.The walls are solid concrete,the water will come into that basement crawl space and go out to the other side so it's free flowing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :And find its own level. MR. FISCH'ETTI : It will find its own level. So it's similar to having piers or open spaces if the flood water carne up that the water will go into the flood vents.They'll automatically open and the water will go into that basement area so it continues to find its own level. MEMBER GOE'HRINGER :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright, at this point I'm going to see if maybe we may want to get some more additional expert information here or there or not. MEMBER DANTES : Comment from the Town Engineer? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah I'm wondering if maybe we we might not require some comments from the Town Engineer with regard to this project or there may be material in the building department that's already been evaluated that we don't have in our file that perhaps we should take a look at. I'm just trying to give the Board as much information as we possibly can have to make you know a balanced assessment. So,why don't I just make a motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting and that way we can December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting see what additional we're holding it open just to see if there's anything else we can think of that we can obtain to help us be better informed and that will give any of the neighbors or the applicant an opportunity to submit any additional information they wish to. If there are other neighbors who are not here who you are in touch with. First of all a Public Notice is only required to go to adjacent property owners not those across the street.That's why a yellow sign is posted. Now, it happens to be FRANCES FIORI :It was thrown on the ground CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It happens to be well that I don't know how that happened.That the Law requires it be posted to notify anybody driving by and you'd be amazed at how many people pick up on those yellow signs and act accordingly. FRANCES FIORI : inaudible CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Hold it. We all made it by going down Orchard and over to Huckleberry. If you know the area and you want to find it we are obligated to find it. We found it. FRANCES FIORI You found it what about the people of the other side of the bridge who don't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : First of all you need to be at a microphone sir. I know you're distressed about this thing and we hear your concerns loud and clear and you have entered a lot of them into our official record and I don't mean to cut you off but you cannot speak from a chair. FRANCES FIORI : I understand that, sorry. CHAIRPERSON'WIESMAN :So, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting which is in 2 weeks at o'clock in the Annex and we will see if we could get some additional information and then we will determine whether or not to close the hearing at that time. Until the time it's closed we can accept and inquire and get additional information. Once the hearing is closed we then have 60 days in which to make a decision. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's a second on my motion.All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER :Aye MEMBER HORNING : Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye (See Minutes for Resolution. ) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye Okay motion's carried.Thank you. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting HEARING#6803—LAUREN ZAMBRELLI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your patience. We'll be right with you I'm going to make some notes.The last application before the Board today is for Lauren Zambrelli.This is#6803 this is a request for variance from Article Ili Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's February 11, 2014, Updated September 29, 2014 Notice of Disaproval based on an application for building permit to re-construct with second story addition an accessory garae, at; 1) less than the minimum side yard setback of 5 feet, located at:4910 Pequash Avenue Cutchogue, NY.SCTM#1000-110-3-27. State your name for the record please. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : Lauren Zambrelli. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So you have a an accessory garage now that you want to rebuild in the same place? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI :We want to put a second story. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You're going to leave it where it is? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright,fine. So you have an existing side yard setback of 2 foot 9 inches okay. The code requires 5 feet.Actually I noticed on the survey it's 3 foot 6 inches a different the other end. So you're not moving it but you can't make it conforming because you're going to use the existing bottom part. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : Right. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Okay. MEMBER DANTES :And they have a C.O.for the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes there is a C.O. on the garage.Okay, now on your application you said you wanted to build that second story for storage because you have no basement or attic in the house? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : Right we did we did a lot of renovation to the house. It was a cottage when we bought it and as our family grew we expanded the house. We did cathedral ceilings and the upstairs so there is no attic and we have a small area underneath but mostly the bottom is crawl space and we just need some more room. We're packed out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay,well when you said storage then I looked at your plans and the plans show a half bath and a workshop. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : Right storage workshop area. My husband currently has his he works outside of the house. He's self employed. He works a lot of hours and we'd like to clear out one of the rooms in the home for like a play room area. We'd like to clear that out make a home office in there for him. We have December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting some reasons for that where I'd like him at home a little bit more and um I recently over the last tow years was diagnosed with two chronic illnesses and so he just needs to be home more often and the first CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So that's going to be a home office? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : No,we're going to do a home office in the house.That's just you know sometimes if like you know he needs to have a work area the garage is packed where he needs to just go and fiddle around or whatever our garage is currently packed.We have a snow blower and 3 motorcycles and a kayak and there's just no room so we just need more room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright so he's fiddle around upstairs what's he fiddling with? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : He's you know by trade he's a carpenter so he used to have a workshop area in the primary garage but you can't even walk in there right now. It's very packed and we need to empty out really our 13 year old is an avid sports person. She plays every sport and she plays two hockey sports. One is ice hockey and the other is in line and the sports bags for those and skates for those and the equipment required is massive. It takes up our very small room where it was her play room.She also has two snowboards in there I mean the room is we have to get rid of it to make an office. CHAIRPERSON,WEISMAN :Alright well tell me what is he doing this carpentry is that what he would simply be doing? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : No, he sells what does he do? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No no what he wants to do in that workshop. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : Oh yea he would have a little fiddle about workshop and then we would have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is like a hobby?This is not his home occupation? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : No and then he would have you know a very small area for that and then just a place where he can have a workshop like if he has to repair something in the house or whatever. Like he needs to set up a workshop for that and the rest would be storage and that's the plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Now is that going to be heated,finished, unfinished? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI :Well we'd like to heat it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just making some notes. Now just so you're aware you cannot have any sleeping space in there. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI :Yeah that's no problem. We're not looking to sleep there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And no cooking facilities of any kind. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : None of that. We don't need none of that. 831 December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So if you're going to heat it you're going to finish it also. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI :Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You want to just heat the upstairs or you want to heat the whole garage? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI :You know I don't know how that works. I don't know how that works.tike I mean I'm sorry I don't really know. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Most people use a Modine heater.A Modine heater is a space heater that hangs in one location in the building. It could hang downstairs too as well as it could hang upstairs. But it's electric.You turn it on you turn it off. It heats up the room and if it's too high you adjust the thermostat. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : Okay MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I mean that's what they call all my friends have Modine heaters in their garages and they work on their cars. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : Alright. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Questions? Ken MEMBER SCHNEIDER :Well I just have one question the Notice of Disaproval calls out a reconstruction of the garage so when I saw that I go Oh if you're going to reconstruct it you can then you can move it to a conforming Location but after review of the site inspection I saw that the foundation looked like you know in really good shape so why would they want to reconstruct this building. So you're not reconstructing you going to add a second story? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : Right. MEMBER SCHNEIDER :That's what you'd Like to do? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER :So it will stay in the same spot and you're not going to demo it or anything? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And you're calling it a hobby workshop with storage on the second floor? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI :That's it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No sleeping, no cooking. I'm fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry, questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I'm done. 1 December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No, I don't any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any else in the audience who wished to address this application? JOHN JESSUP :Good afternoon, my name is John Jessup I'm hear to on behalf of my mother who lives next door(inaudible)and we're asking for the variance be denied. We I've only been informed about this information since Monday (inaudible)Thursday thanksgiving day found out about this so my mother said take a look into things.So,what we received was a nice little letter and Lauren next door indicating briefly what they want to do and it just simply states MEMBER DANTES :Which side do you live on? JOHN JESSUP:We're on the south side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that your shed then that's next to the there's a shed that's quite near the existing garage on the subject property. So you're on that lot. Okay. JOHN JESSUP:Yes and it's nice letter it basically says they're looking for a storage room so it doesn't really raise any red flags. I was not aware that you didn't have to let people across the street know. I was not aware that you didn't have to inform the people across the street but this letter indicates that they did that also. Did you receive any letters from anybody else any of the property owners? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. JOHN JESSUP:That's probably because they went oh space they probably just want to put a shed out there or something like that. So Monday I called the ZBA and found out that they wanted to put a second floor on and that's where things got a little bit crazy. I was like second floor. So, l went down yesterday and I pulled some of the records and I noticed that the first records that they were going to put in the ZBA zone people could not really understand what the coverage was and it indicated it was 19.7 square foot coverage of the property and the max for the area calls for 20%coverage. So they the ZBA asked for a new survey to be presented which they did and it included the deck a pool and everything else and it brought that location to 23.8 so it's already over the sq. footage that's allowed for the footprint for the property.And that's not including they have a big jumper gym back there roughly about 10 foot diameter and a play house that their kids been using for years.That's not included on this square footage and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well I do want to just let you know that as long as the footprint is not increased then it doesn't increase the lot coverage. In other words the second story will not affect the JOHN JESSUP : Oh yea no no I understand I'm just trying to prove a point that they've already exceeded the Town's already been lenient enough to allow them to put a second story on even with the square footage their addition even with the square footage over so I feel that the Town is already showing them leniency on this part.So what I'm looking at is the garage, it already doesn't comply to Town Code. Hsi December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting I was out there today and the 2.9 inches that's on the survey 1 got 2.3 inches. I'm not gonna add 6 inches but it's already less than that.So it doesn't comply to the 5 foot setback so that's already grandfathered and that's okay.The thing that concerned my mother and myself is that that brief little letter about storage has no indication to any of the neighbors that half bath. Do you have a bathroom in your attic for your storage? I don't know anybody it doesn't make sense if you're looking at it for just storage why do need a half bath? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well the Code does permit a half bath in an accessory structure. JOHN JESSUP : Oh yea right but the letter that they sent out to people said just for storage so now you kind of you know it just doesn't make sense. If you wanted to be upfront with the people you should of said I want a second story on my garage I'm proposing a half bath and that would give the neighborhood more information to say should I be here or not. So that wasn't done like that.The garage is like 10 steps from the house. I'm a carpenter too.I've done carpentry for years.To walk down even if you do give him the second floor to walk down the steps the house is closer than I am to you there's no reason for a bathroom up there.And with a bathroom we all know you need heat otherwise the pipes are going to break and everything else you're gonna have floods and everything else and I've been in many situations where I've seen this half bath turn into an illegal full bath or an accessory apartment and that's another reason we don't want we're not looking to have that thing there. Will they put it there we don't know but it just opens up the door to a quick little shower it can be a year round or a summer accessory apartment. I'm going to lead up to where the neighborhood really just calls for these are the pictures that are across the street just to give you an idea. I know that you've probably been to the thing. All the houses in the area only have a single garage.The profile is low(inaudible)you can out to this area the openness and scenery I drove around the neighborhood for about an hour and could not find one garage detached garage that fits into what they're looking to do. I found one garage that did have a second floor to it but it met all the zoning regulations it was setback I couldn't go onto the property cause that would be trespassing so but it did look like it had 14 feet on one side and it certainly had about 20 feet leading up to the garage doors.This is a case where this has never been done before in the Fleets Neck property owner's area. I didn't have enough time to travel the rest of the neighborhood. So you gonna set a precedent by allowing this.I don't know why like I said the people across the street will not say"hey look alright you know they got a second floor we want a second floor" and then it just goes right down the neighborhood.As you can see from the pictures they're all just one level one car garage,one house is a two car garage but they're just seasonal places and that so again you're not staying with the look of the place.You can leap into the next thing let me just I know you've been out to the location but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We have yes.All of us have. JOHN JESSUP : Okay alright so you know this is a picture of their house. And we all came out here for the country setting and the nice low cottages houses that have were up here and in place and in 2006 they built this this house which beautiful house beautiful house but the people in the neighborhood have called it the Taj Mahal. It doesn't conform to the zoning it's only got about 2%feet on one side but what I want you to take a look at this house is picture a two car garage two floor garage on that house. I'm December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting from back west and this is something you're going to see in western Nassau county or Queens.This is does not look like a house you're going to see out in the rural parts of Cutchogue. It just doesn't go. If you took away the gravel I wouldn't know if I was in Queens or in east end of Long Island the beautiful countryside that we have out this way. Now they had mentioned needing more room. I can understand that cause they do have children so I know that they have everything else but if they need more room it's time to get rid of some of the stuff from the garage and make room. I we've all run into that situation where we needed extra room but to take the house and build a two story garage on this property it just doesn't go.Another reason that we're looking to have this denied is these are pictures that lookout back of my mom's house right now.This is out the back window to the bedroom the other picture is out the back living room which is used for every event. She watches TV out there socializes out there and you're looking at putting a second floor second structure over 19 feet back there.That is going to be like you're'standing in the structure yourself from the bathroom or the TV room. It just again it's too close to the property.This I've seen second floors houses that's fine. If this property was twice the size probably one lot size. It's acutally I think the only house in the street that's one lot size everybody else has;two sized lots. It would be fine but when you're talking 2 feet from the property line already grandfathered in already doesn't meet code 2 feet I don't know this second floor goes on here I can almost think l can pass a cup of sugar out the window to them and it's just going to be enormous.You're going to sit there and the way that the back room is set up where the couch is you look out that direction so we already been my mom's already been looking at the house that's there I think it's beautiful but again I think it's overbuilt for the property and now she has to put up with 20 feet of a garage. Now in my opinion it doesn't warrant there so again needing storage I thought you know what could be done.Well I have a business too and I need storage so I rented a storage locker I didn't drag this out to my yard and carp it up and be a nuisance to the neighborhood. I rented a storage locker until I can figure out things to do move things around and what my parents did in the early 80's when they were out decided to come out here full time they also needed they excavated the basement put proper footings in had it inspected by the Town and everything else have tremendous amount of storage room there now.That's another option that they should look into doing. It's just it doesn't meet the code. It doesn't meet the neighborhood and it's nothing I'm not nasty to them I mean we're honored to have them as neighbors.They're great neighbors.You'd be lucky to have them as your neighbors so it's nothing that it just comes down to what fits what's the look when you're walking down the street what vibe to do you get with the openness and that what's the character of the neighborhood. Are they are they small houses yea they're built up a little bit but they're certainly do not have two levels on the garage cause this thing you're going to stand out and just go wow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you a question sir.The width of the existing garage is 14 feet give or take a couple of inches like 3 inches or something if the applicant were to cut back that proposed second story to make-it a conforming side yard setback of 5 feet JOHN JESSUP :You mean move physical structure? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no the structure stays where it is but the Board has done this at times when a structure is really close and the second floor is proposed instead of having that second floor _111-41y7e^ X�' a�� , December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting making it higher wall that's very very close to a property we've required that they cut back that second floor so that the second story sits within a code conforming distance from the side yard. JOHN JESSUP: Oh I see so you're saying if you brought the second floor back 2%feet CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Another couple of feet another 2 feet I mean it would be Like 12 foot wide instead of 14 feet wide. JOHN JESSUP :Well then it makes it I don't know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well no we're exploring options you know I'm trying to look at the various possibilities. We're not making any conclusion about anything. JOHN JESSUP : But your still looking at 19 feet of the structure? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Correct. JOHN JESSUP : Right out your living room window and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That is correct but I should also let you know although it's not in a conforming location the code does permit on a property this size 22 foot high accessory structures. JOHN JESSUP : Right I know they're only going 19 we appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You know it will have an impact visually. JOHN JESSUP : It's visually for our whosever is residing in our house be it now or remember this is not going to be there for a month or two months it's going to be there forever so you know I don't mean anything for my mom but eventually she is going to pass on somebody else is going to be living there and they're going to be there. It's going to be a permanent structure and like I said drive the neighborhood there's no garage in the neighborhood that has a second floor to it with this (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it the size and its location that is a concern? But you also seem to be concerned about the use. JOHN JESSUP:Yes yes I am concerned about the use because Dan does own his own business and we're concerned that he's going to operate a business in a residential neighborhood. Now I'm a carpenter and I've done some tinkering in my house and all that but I've been in a lot of houses and there's a lot of illegal stuff going on and (inaudible) until it's already there and then you go well they're nice people and all that it just opens up the door for it to happen. Okay if it's not there it's not there.You need to make an office in the house rent a storage locker get all the stuff out of the house put a little office in his house where there's a bathroom right there. I just it just opens up the door it gives them leeway to use it and yes we didn't know they were going to furnish it now they're talking about heating it.You're not far away from an accessory apartment sorry I don't want to accuse them of anything but being in the carpenter business for the last 30 years (inaudible) so that means it can be done. Once you bring December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting plumbing out to a structure like that then you don't know what's going to happen behind closed walls and all that.There is a use issue also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Perhaps I should ask the applicants if they want to make some comments in reply of what we've just heard.You have to come to the either one LAUREN ZAMBRELLI :We have absolutely no intention of making that any kind of apartment at all. We have a desire and a need for more storage.We Dan will have an office in the house. He is self-employed he will have an office in our playroom.That's it that's our only intention.We feel the same way about Ethel. We've been very good neighbors and we didn't know she was opposed as a matter of fact when we proposed it to her we asked if we can take two of her trees down on her property right next to the garage so that we could build up and she agreed. Now maybe she's reconsidered and that's fine I didn't know. So 1 don't understand the change.We did consider doing a basement but it would require a lot. We have irrigation in the property. My husband explained that if we raised made a basement dug it out that there could be damage to the house.We have to Lift the house and there could be damage to the house.Again, our lives our very stressful now I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis last Ocotber and on September 7th diagnosed with Hashimoto's and my life is very complicated so we're really just trying to simplify things for us. We thought this would be the easiest answer.We're not looking to do an apartment at all that's not our intention. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you looked at I know that you've got these steps down there's a grade change in your property it complicates things but let's just explore it in the record the option of building onto the side of the existing garage making it wider going toward those steps have you thought about adding additional space that way rather than going up?The septic appears oh yea there's a septic LP teaching pool there on your survey you have to stay fairly clear of that by code. ST is the septic tank and LP is the leaching pool so that kind of does limit the ability to build it on the side. I was looking to see if on the survey they could go sideways away from your property but because of the way their sewage system is set up that really isn't an option. JOHN JESSUP : Even if it did allow it you needed a variance because it's already at 24%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's right you need lot coverage. JOHN JESSUP Right right right so you're gonna take up more lot coverage so I think that's why they said let's go up. But like I said it's just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's cheaper to build that way leave the foundation. JOHN JESSUP :Absolutely but it's just the amount nobody wants a billboard in there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :You know the only thing that I could offer on this to make it a gambrel on the second floor and make it look like a barn and a barn is a very appealing looking thing rather than seeing the two roofs and that's what I could see. I happen to live in a gambrel and it's tremendous ability for storage upstairs because it's like having a cathedral ceiling. 89 ,; i December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting JOHN JESSUP: I understand that but my mother's point is whatever it is it's going up higher MEMBER GOEHRINGER :We understand JOHN JESSUP : It's a bigger billboard and like I said nobody in town has second floors on their garage. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI :Well there on Pequash there is a second story on the garage actually on the very beginning of Pequash on the left hand side there is a second story on the garage.Again, I don't want to I'm sorry there is Robins Mr. Robins MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Yeah all the way down at the end. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI :Yea and um there are two on Stillwater the next street over.This is very hard. I feel bad. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know it's emotional. Sometimes these become emotional for all parties. JOHN JESSUP:That's what I'm saying they're fantastic neighbors. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI :Yeah and so are they. Ethel has is very good sweet loving very good person.This is a little hard for me I,didn't know she was opposed. We do need we do need we do need the MEMBER GOEHRINGER :You want to leave it open to see if they think of anything else? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't really think there is anything else you now that we want to learn. I don't know what other information we can be asking for.There are no other agencies we you know JOHN JESSUP :You did mention that you go out to all the locations? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yes. JOHN JESSUP : My mother would be more than happy to open up her house then you can sit in her living room and see CHAIRPERSONWEISMAN : I think you know occasionally we certainly have the right to go on property that is before the Board.We're very careful about going on other properties because they're not really before the Zoning Board though sometimes it's necessary to look on somebody else's (inaudible) JOHN JESSUP :Well that's the whole thing.She sits in that back room all day long.That's her main room that she's in and she's looking out that window cause the way the living room is set up CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean the reason I pointed out the cutting back to 12 foot it's more expensive and more awkward to build that way probably have to also move the deck or something like that. If that was a conforming 5 feet from your property line you wouldn't need to be before this Board because it would conform to the Code and side yard setback. JOHN JESSUP : (inaudible)first floor but that's already granted. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah that's there and it has a C.O. If they build a second story that conforms to the side yard they don't even and the height which they are proposing they wouldn't even need to be before this Board.They have that gives them the right as long as they are conforming to code to build this the second floor area. With regard to the bathroom the code permits a half bath in an accessory apartment as of right an accessory structure....take it back that is a right that's given to any property owner and the Board cannot really deny JOHN JESSUP :On those grounds CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rights that the code permits.With regard to heat that's really a building department issue. I mean we can sometimes say no heat no you know the person doesn't want to finish it off this is meant to be used year round we can say no central heat you know no radiant heat and they can heat it with or air conditioning for that matter.You stick an air conditioning unit in the wall you can stick in on a window that's an accessory. So the law is there to do two things. One is to protect certain rights intact for property owners that conform to the code. Second to grant relief or justified for those who don't because they're on a preexisting non-conforming situation and there are issues and the third is to make sure that the neighbor's welfare is protected and our job is to balance that all out fairly which is why we have these hearings.You never know what comes up in a hearing.Yea everything seems simple until it isn't. Okay, so I don't know if there's anything else the Board wants to ask or if there is anything you can anticipate getting then we'll hold it open otherwise I think we might as well just close it and deal with it unless you want you and your husband want to think a little bit more. LAUREN ZAMBRELLLI :I have a question I don't know I don't really understand what you meant by a gambrel roof I'm sure my husband does. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It's a barn roof that looks like that.You would turn the entire structure back into a barn. It would look like a barn okay. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : Would we have to reapply for that if I don't know what would be required if we were to change the structure I guess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you were to change the structure you can come to us we didn't close the hearing you can come back with an amended application no additional cost and it would just simply say we applied for this we are going to amend this so that it looks like that. JOHN JESSUP :What would be gained by this as far as a variance procedure I mean it's more of aesthetic MEMBER GEOHRINGER : It would be aesthetic it would be aesthetic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :A gambrel roof is just an aesthetic thing it doesn't gives you a lot of head clearance.You might not need dogs dormers. JOHN JESSUP :To get that look you'd still need to keep the footprint going up and again December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Yeah but you'd only be looking at new roof and probably architectural shingles that would be I'm not I'm just telling you that it affords and I've built these I've built one on a small farm that I had had unfortunately I don't have it anymore and it just looks so adorable because it was a barn and the barn just gives you that whole northfork effect as opposed to a straight on garage. I'm not complaining nor am I criticizing these peoples garage in any way but it just it looks like a finished product that just looks so much nicer than you know putting a top on a garage. Pardon me. (inaudible) I know you are but I'm just telling you the thing is you're cutting the entire roof off straight and you're putting this structure up that's 10 feet high that looks like this it's not you know you're not going up again and then creating another roof above. JOHN JESSUP :Right you're already coming up on an angle from the MEMBER GEOHRINGER :Yeah because the side is actually covered because of the barn the gambrel aspect. JOHN JESSUP : Oh with the shingles on the side. MEMBER GOEHRINGER :With the shingles yea that's what I'm saying. JOHN JESSUP: But you can still do that even though you're going over the same footprint where it's only 2 feet 9 inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute hold it we cannot be sitting here designing something stop right now.This is not MEMBER GEOHRINGER :We're not designing anything I mean you're an architect you know that it's a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes I am unfortunately this is MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'm telling you that I have one you can come over and look at it. JOHN JESSUP : No I'm just saying cause she said if you go back three foot then it conforms to 5 foot CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's right JOHN JESSUP : But if you start from that top plate CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Then it won't. It will have the same setback. JOHN JESSUP : Right building up there to get asymmetry MEMBER GOEHRINGER :You actually Piave less excuse me Les one second you actually have less overhang with a gambrel than you do with a normal gable end roof okay.The roof that's on this structure right now is a very low pitch CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would change the look but it will not change the setback December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So they would still need the same variance relief. Now whether that would make a big difference to everybody on this Board or not_I can't say but we have to look at it and we have to talk about it.You can think about whether or not you want to go ahead and cut it back on the top to have a conforming side yard in which case frankly you wouldn't even need a variance but that's a little more awkward aesthetically LAUREN ZAMBRELLI :That would look terrible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean you're gonna have probably have a shed roof you know because you know it's just not going to balance. Or you can just say I'm done this is the best we can offer this is what we want and we will close this hearing and we will work it out.We will listen to all testimony and we'll see what makes sense.You want to have a little bit of time to think this through and talk to each other or you don't need it.You tell us.Alright, here's what I'm gonna do cause obviously you're nice neighbors to each other.The Board encourages efforts to try and work things out among neighbors when there's a seeming possibility of doing that. Sometimes neighbors are very contentious and then we just say that's it we have to deal with it. If neighbors are friendly toward each other and can find something amicable that's the best case scenario. Why don't we just adjourn this to the next meeting which is in two weeks. That will take place at 5 o'clock in the Annex at which between now and then you that means you can submit anything you want.Anybody can. If you change your mind if you have different thoughts if you' want to look at something else if they change their mind all of that can be done because the hearing has not been closed'. It just means you got two weeks at which point we'll see what we get maybe we won't get anything. I'm not saying we're expecting anything from anybody but it will give you two weeks and whatever we get or don't get we will then evaluate it at the time. We will probably cause I can't see going too much farther with this. We will then close the hearing officially.You can come to that meeting if you wish and listen but it's not recorded and there is no public record and there is no testimony.There is no question and answers nothing like that.You don't have to come and then we have 60 days after that date in which time to render a decision by law. We usually do it a lot faster than that. We have a meeting every two weeks so we try to get it done at the next meeting.Yea December 18`h is when we will close this and we'll just take into consideration anything else we get. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI :And that's where I'm sorry in the annex? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : I don't know where that is. CHAIRPERSON ZAMBRELLI : It's in the bank building you know where the building department is we're right there in the same ground floor space as right where Vicki is. At that counter there's a conference room in there we meet in there.The door will be open.So anything you have that you want to submit to support your application or to change your application just bring it in to Vicki and she will make sure all the Board members get it. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : I have a question. If we decide you,know we're going to talk if we decide to modify the roof does that have to be submitted or the variance the variance? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it if it's the variance is still the variance at the side yard doesn't change LAUREN ZAMBRELLI : Right CHAIRPERSON ZAMBRELLI : However we stamp drawings to send to the building department.When there's variances they have to know we've looked at it and this is what we said okay to. So, if that was something you agreed to let's say you're all happy with that made a difference then what we can do is close the hearing subject to receipt of the drawings that are going to be the final drawings okay and or if you get them to us before two weeks then that's what we'll look at and if we stamp an approval that's what we'll stamp. Because if things get changed from what we look at then the building department comes back to us and says this isn't what you signed off on so it just prolongs it. Does that clear up? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI :Yes,thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn to December 18th MEMBER GOEHRINGER :Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER :Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye (See Minutes for Resolution.) MEMBER GOEHRINGER : If you want to look at my house I'll give you my address. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI :Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It has two barns they're both connected. December 4, 2014 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I, Elizabeth Sakarellos, 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 I Elizabeth Sakarellos ZBA Clerk Typist Date :January 5,2015