Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/05/2015 HearingTOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall Southold, New York February 5, 2015 9:41 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES — Member GEORGE HORNING — Member KENNETH SCHNEIDER — Member GERARD GOEHRINGER — Member (Absent) VICKI TOTH — Board Assistant STEPHEN KIELY — Assistant Town Attorney (arrived at 9:02 A.M.) February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page JOAN COOKE # 6808 3-20 ROBERT W. DIXON # 6831 20-28 DAVID TURNER # 6830 28-31 RICK NAPPI # 6828 31-34 860 BAYVIEW DRIVE, LLC # 6829 34-40 TIMOTHY and GOERGIA QUINN # 6833 41-46 MARY A. HOVEY # 6832 46-60 LEWIS TEPERMAN # 6826 60-68 BERRY & BERRY # 6818 69-72 19 February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6808 — JOAN COOKE (Adj. from 12/18/14) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Request for Variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 28, 2014 amended September 5, 2014 Notice of Disapproval 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. Bruce did you want to come forward and add anything to this application? BRUCE ANDERSON : I'm not here to put the case in again but where I think we left it was we heard testimony from the neighbors Laudato who's to the north and Massaro who's to the south. The objection seems to be that the buildings getting taller as a result of complying with the flood plain regulations of the town is here to enforce Laudato testified that they repaired their house however they did it with a building permit without raising their house and that was their solution to the storm damage. Massaro testified that his he incurred $20 or $22,000 worth of damage to boilers and furnaces and the like and he simply replaced those components and his approach is just to not also not to raise the house to protect the structure from flood damage. Our clients although have always wanted to raise the house and their proposal is to do that and they secured a building permit to raise the house. The only reason we're here is really two fold, number one because they substituted a shed roof instead in lieu of a gabled roof in the front and rear part of the property and because the wood deck although existing for many years with previously a patio and no one apparently got a building permit for the wood deck. This is prior to my client's ownership. So that's why we are before you. The house would have a finished floor elevation of 11 feet. It would provide for a crawl space of 6 feet which makes it non -habitable but it provides an area to store outdoor furniture kayaks etc. and it is built and designed to comply with the flood plain management regulations that this town is bound to enforce. The overall height of the structure is 22 feet from grade so it complies with the height. We are not asking for any height variances of any kind. Also I asked the client if we can do something to maybe soften the look of it and what we came up with is to take the exterior shingle a portion of the house and extend it down to grade or within 18 inches of grade with the shingles to soften its aesthetic appearance and that's what the client has agreed to do so we would be perfectly acceptable to a condition that states that cause that would be our intent and it's not that much expense more expense is for us to do and I think it would soften the overall appearance of the house. As a final matter it's a good thing to comply with FEMA regulations because the Town is audited my understanding is on an annual base to see if they're properly enforcing the flood plain regulations and where Towns are found not to do February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting that it affects what's called the community rating which is the insurance rates that everyone pays community wide so it should be the policy of the Town I believe it is and it should be the policy of this Board and I believe it is to encourage compliance with flood plain regulations to protect the structures and also to control future damages and insurance cost. I don't know that I have anything more to add. I'm here to answer any questions. With me today is Joe Fischetti, he's also here to answer any questions you may have. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask a couple. The first is did you receive the Town Engineer's report? BRUCE ANDERSON : No I did not. CHIARPERSON WEISMAN : You didn't? You should of from Jaimie Richter. It was dated December 10th. You should have that. JOE FISCHETTI : The report was was fine. He made a question on the venting and we can correct those venting with the Building Department. It was some of the vents flood vents at the bottom of the property one of them has to be moved around to the back. It was incorrectly cause the grading was showing on the plan which show that that venting that flood venting that we put in there so we just have to move the venting to an opposite side. Other than that I have no comment on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, let me just put down cause we have to stamp these things Joe as you know so if we put down flood vents will be per Building Department JOE FISCHETTI : Yea that's basically the vent was put on one was shown on one wall where the grading is will be over the vent and that's incorrect. We're just going to move it around to another wall. Flood venting needs to be placed on two walls so that they have the proper movement so I can move it from one wall to another wall and comply. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. MEMBER HORNING : Mr. Fischetti how does that venting in the event of a flood and water's washing through there. How does that relate to the floor drain that's also shown on the plan and floor drain with a gravel bed how much of JOE FISCHETTI : Where are you talking about? MEMBER HORNING : Sheet number one. Your sheet number one dated JOE FISCHETTI : That's just to take it's basically just a drain to drain the last little bit of water that's kind of on the top of the rat slab so it doesn't lay there. Because the flood vents are not February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting at level with the floor they're slightly higher that would mean that any floods that are in there would kind of water would lay there so this floor drain just to get the last little bit. MEMBER HORNING : So that last little of water would basically remain on site is that what JOE FISCHETTI : Oh yea it just goes into the ground it gives it the ability to drain that last bit of water that's kind of laying there. MEMBER HORNING : But this flood water for these flood vents could go anywhere. JOE FISCHETTI : They need to be within 12 inches of the slab. They can't be higher because they'd be MEMBER HORNING : If you have a foot of water or higher let's say 16 inches and 4 inches of it going through these flood vents then this water that's in doing this is would you say everywhere else JOE FISCHETTI : Oh yea this is this were talking about floods within the area it's not just this house. MEMBER HORNING : Right. So once it goes through there it continues going somewhere. JOE FISCHETTI : It continues wherever it's going. It's the hydraulic level within that area. MEMBER HORNING: Yes, thank you. MEMBER DANTES : I think the other question I was wondering was when you do the work on the septic system are you going to have to be installing new piping to the system? JOE FISCHETTI : I don't think so. It's just really relocating that cesspool a little bit higher in the same location. Well, if it's higher than the pipe being in essence the piping would have to be in the same location but the pitch would have to be changed. MEMBER HORNING : So you would re -pipe it? JOE FISCHETTI : Yea it would have to be re -piped because of pitch yes. MEMBER HORNING : Would you seek Health Departments approval? JOE FISCHETTI : We don't need to it's basically just a repair. The Health Department allows you to repair in kind and that's what we're doing. We're repairing a failed system in kind. February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're bringing in additional fill and so technically if you're going to be elevating it it is going to be changing it it will need to be reviewed by Suffolk County Health Department. JOE FISCHETTI : No it doesn't. It's in kind it doesn't have to be reviewed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's not exactly how we read some of the details in the Steven do you have that section? JOE FISCHETTI : No, if you have any person a person has a failed sanitary system are allowed to replace it in kind. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yea if it's failed. JOE FISCHETTI : Yea so that's what we're replacing in kind in the same place and if the pitches are different CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it in the same place if it's three (3) feet higher? JOE FISCHETTI : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's still considered the same place? JOE FISCHETTI : Sure BRUCE ANDERSON : We've done it routinely for years. JOE FISCHETTI : Yea. MEMBER HORNING : Could you actually add on to it to do making JOE FISCHETTI : No, that's not in kind. If a person has two (2) cesspools in a house which many people have they have they put the first cesspool in then they put another one in over the years they never got approval for it we see it all the time there's two (2) or three (3) systems in there. So if a person if those were completely failed you would be able to especially when you have block or brick pools we always recommend those have to get out of there they have to be removed because those are the ones that fail. We never ask them we go in there we replace them in kind and we sometimes we have to raise them because they are in water and you raise them up higher. Health Department does and I've spoken to the Health Department a number of times and they don't want to get involved in repairing existing systems. They want to have these repaired. They don't want systems they want the systems repaired as long as they are repaired in kind. I've done these many times. February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : What's the nature of the repairing? JOE FISCHETTI : You physically remove the old system if you have a block pool let's assume we have many many block pools you go in there you remove the block you remove all the bad material that was there. You would replace good material around there you would put back a precast system reasonably within the context of what you could put there. Usually we put in whatever we can fit that's bigger cause block pools are sometimes smaller and they climb up they get smaller vertically cause they're coming in on the side so we would normally put an 8 foot diameter leeching pool in the same place try to keep it as high above the water table as we can at that point. We usually start at two (2) feet which is what it is and we try to we put it back and back fill and that's the repair. We never have to talk to them about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what's being called a repair is in fact using different material. It's not really just taking the old stuff. JOE FISCHETTI : Yes we're repairing a failed system. Yea they want you're changing a block or brick pool to a precast replacing. If you read the code it says repair in kind and in kind wouldn't be don't put back the old block but put back that particular leeching pool in kind in the same place. MEMBER DANTES: So it's a new leeching pool new pipe. JOE FISCHETTI : New system new pool in the same place. MEMBER DANTES: And it's considered a repair. JOE FISCHETTI : It's a repair. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's odd language. JOE FISCHETTI : You're repairing no you're missing you're repairing a sanitary a system so it's you're repairing a system so if we look at it as let's say there's two (2) pools there and you're repairing you're taking one (1) pool out and you replace it you're still repairing a system so repair is the system even though you're replacing an item of that system. MEMBER DANTES : That includes the external piping and the ring and? JOE FISCHETTI : Yea repair whatever you need to replace. BRUCE ANDERSON : Let's be mindful here that we have a Building Permit to do this work. We're here because of roofs because the building inspector said that they said you need a variance for the shed roofs that's what we're here for just so everyone is clear on that. 7 February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea of course we're aware of there's a lot of variance relief required here it's like five (5) variances on this but the reason we're questioning this is clearly because one of our state statutes one of our Town laws has us looking at adverse environmental impacts and you know that includes Joe's discussion of drainage and the whole idea of a healthy functioning septic system particularly in that area where it's very vulnerable I mean nobody would want to live in an area where a septic system is going to fail and sewage is going to be dumped all over the place. That's why BRUCE ANDERSON : So we're improving those functions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that's why we're exploring in the record exactly what's going to be proposed what's going to happen. MEMBER DANTES : I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Excuse me I'm sorry you have to come to the mic and then you have to state your name please. MAUREEN BEAURY : Maureen Beaury I own the adjacent property with my husband. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Ok. Can you spell your name please. MAUREEN BEAURY : Beaury they have it as Massaro which is the previous owner. MEMBER HORNING : What direction from this applicant was on this guy is on a corner where are you? MAUREEN BEAURY : We are actually the corner property that surrounds her property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh I see okay and would you state your name again for MAUREEN BEAURY : It's Maureen Beaury. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much. What would you like to tell us? MAUREEN BEAURY : I originally asked to be adjourned my husband was much more versed on what was going on here he's extremely ill that's why he could not make it today so but I understand that can only come from the applicant but listening to this part of it my question is when you raise there is a flood issue there no matter what. The ground is soft you hit water February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting going two (2) feet. We had to have cesspool work done and we had to have a Health Certificate assigned to that when we did it when we first purchased the home partly because the ground water was right there. The flood issue when they do raise the back raise the cesspool that re - grades the land. Does that again go back to re -flooding my property off of theirs? And they're also putting in the cement slab which gives the water nowhere to go other than that drain but there's only two (2) foot when you dig into that land there's about two (2) feet before you hit ground water so when they put in this vent where does that go once you hit I see all this coming back onto my property when it goes into that vent and drains it's coming back. There's nowhere else for it to go the ground is soft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The law requires the applicant and the Building Department will check on this as will the Town Engineer to conform to Chapter 236 of the Town Code which has to do with Storm Water Management on site drainage. They will be required to have a drainage system that would include the septic and their vents and all that that conforms to the chapter which requires everybody keep you know rain water and ground water on their property that it not flood into a road that it not flood into adjacent properties and that this Board almost automatically puts that in every single decision. It's the law they simply have to address those issues with the Building Department and the Town Engineer. I'm not an expert so I can't tell you exactly how they're going to do it but they'll have to do it. MAUREEN BEAURY : And if doesn't happen this is all said and done after the first rainfall what's the recourse for that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A code enforcement. MEMBER DANTES : But keep in mind I mean if there's like a super Sandy or something like that Chapter 236 might not handle (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't address catastrophes. MAUREEN BEAURY : On a typical rain the area between the right on our property is soft so it floods no matter what. The road floods it backs into that area so it floods on a typical rain. It is soft and water fills quite sometime after the rain. A cement slab there I would think unless that is really somehow re -engineered is only going to make that worse. Cause you know the house as it exists sits right on that property line that cement slab is coming up to that property line water doesn't run through cement it runs back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as I said that the system that they put in place is going to have to really keep everything on their site to the extent that it's possible to do I mean I don't think any of us can be absolutely 100% guaranteed that rain won't go this way or that way or February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting whatever. Gutter and leaders dry wells all of those kinds of things are required to keep water on everybody's property and not on their neighbors. MAUREEN BEAURY : My other question is once they build the stairway out to the front of this house cause there is no the house takes up the majority of the lot where are they parking as far as an environmental issue? There's no room for parking you know for their own vehicles which obviously they would need to get there and also just in general it's the house as it exists once you go that high really inhibits my own privacy and I know that's maybe not your under your authority but it does inhibit my privacy because they (inaudible) my land like I said it surrounds my house and my understanding is that they're going I understand that you do have to go up for the flood and for possible floods and different water issues but they're going well above and beyond that for a convenience issue. I mean am I correct in that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just ask Bruce a question. I think originally the Trustees permit was for eight (8) feet in elevation and you're proposing eleven (11). Did you get an amendment didn't you get an amended Trustees permit? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes the minimum required would be that the lowest horizontal member would be at eight (8) feet because you're an AE6. In this application the first floor elevation becomes eleven (11). The actual crawl space itself instead of being three (3) feet is six (6) feet and the advantage there is you get some storage you can also service the whatever you have to do from underneath the house in a three (3) crawlspace is very very tight. It increases compliance we're talking about minimum we're not talking about maximum so I mean we know in areas that we work that for example in Southampton they've added another foot so now they're at three (3) feet so you want to get as high as you want you don't want to look at this and say well you should only raise it to the minimum because you're then putting your own community at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting their own structures and when it comes to community ratings. You want them you don't want to always do the minimum you want to do more than minimum if you can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I agree but the reason I think there's some concern about it is simply because they're it's so close to the property line. You know if this thing was in for other kinds of variances and not ones that had big impact on the adjacent properties then it wouldn't be as big an issue. I'm sure you're familiar with the Walz interpretation that indicates non - conformances increased volumetrically when it goes up not just out and so there is an impact by raising this on the side yard in terms of the degree of non-conformance both vertically and you know horizontally. February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : No doubt that's why we've said we would bring the outer course down and soften its look but we're not anywhere near a maximum height, we're not adding a second story CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand. BRUCE ANDERSON : which we would be able to do I presume you know. We're not doing we're simply lifting up this house to comply and it's first floor elevation is eleven (11) feet which by the way would of given minimum protection on a hurricane Sandy. It seems that the gamble of the neighborhood is this will never happen again. I don't give them great odds. My assumption is you will have future Sandy's and by the way Sandy wasn't even a hurricane cause it didn't have the sustained winds to qualify as a hurricane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know just to for the sake of the audience and all of our sakes the bottom line is character of the neighborhood is an important consideration for us but neighborhoods in flood zones you know fragile areas will be changing. If you look at Rabbit Lane right near there you know many of those houses have been raised to be FEMA compliant because they are so vulnerable. Let's face it what started out as little cottages on the water very picturesque have become more important homes more year round dwellings and people want to protect their property and if you do certain renovations if they're older they have to then become compliant to FEMA and we're going to see this all across town and it's a very difficult thing for us to sit here and know that you've got little cottages over here and suddenly there's going to be a big structure next to them because it does change the appearance the character but that's gonna happen all over town whether we like it or not. BRUCE ANDERSON : That's right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you know what we're trying to do is figure out how to respect good environmental science and support it but also be sensitive wherever we can to the impact that the neighbors that are maybe not ready to become FEMA compliant you know may experience. BRUCE ANDERSON : Yea plus no only that plus when you think about the requirements of FEMA over the years have not become more lax they have become stricter and most the remapping that has happened is caused buildings to encourage buildings to get higher because people who study this believe that the risk of flooding today are greater than they were yesterday and perceived to be greater in the future than they are today. So what we're doing here is consistent with the goals of flood prevention. MEMBER HORNING : Just a minute so I can ask a question on septic systems cesspools down in that neighborhood Rabbit Lane and such I just don't see is there like an average time where February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting people could use just septic systems again or how long could it take for the water to recede enough to and do they have to go and have their septic tanks dealt with at all. What happened down there? BRUCE ANDERSON : The main problem that folks will have with their septic system is because often the septic tanks systems themselves are installed in ground water so the capacity of these individual block systems is extremely limited and pumping out doesn't help because as quick as you can pump out a cesspool the ground water just replenishes the space so where we have done septic repairs they've always involved lifting them always. MEMBER HORNING : Does the salt water kill the bacteria if you had a septic tank does the salt water kill the bacteria in there? BRUCE ANDERSON : Oh yea it would. Salt water is very antiseptic yes is the answer. MEMBER DANTES : Can you address the neighbors concern about parking. Is there room for two (2) parking spaces in the front yard. BRUCE ANDERSON : Well the footprint of the house doesn't change. There is room to park most of the people park on the street and the lot at least the lot directly to the north has the identical problem so there's nothing about this application that affect our community cause we're not expanding the footprint of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So where does the owner currently park? BRUCE ANDERSON : In the front and to the left of the building as your looking from the street to the building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And would that still be an option with those stairs? BRUCE ANDERSON : Still an option. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you're saying that the way the owner is parking on the property now is not going to change because the stairs are going to be coming into the front yard. BRUCE ANDERSON : No that's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He'd like to say something. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask Bruce one more question? The reason why I'm asking is because the Code requires two (2) onsite parking spaces per dwelling is there room for the two spaces or? February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not really. BRUCE ANDERSON : The room provided is really one (1) space and it's to the north west side of the property. As I said we're not here for a parking variance and we're not building a new house we're simply raising an existing house. There's no impact on parking because we're not changing the parking condition of the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the steps do. The steps you know break up the front yard of that. They're coming pretty close to the property line and where as you may have been able to sneak in two (2) cars without those steps you got room for just about one (1). The only other way to do it would be if in fact some gravel went along that side yard the side yard that's 10.7 feet in width you can pull up two (2) cars along that edge. BRUCE ANDERSON : Conceivably you could yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean that's the only place you're gonna get two (2) cars on the property. BRUCE ANDERSON: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you wanted to say something. Come to the mic again. It's recorded that's why we MAUREEN BEAURY : It was really to the parking. No one parks on the street there really. Everyone has space to park and the way the house sits to get two (2) cars in the front with that stairwell would be an amazing trick. I don't know if you've been down and looked at the property but two (2) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea we've all seen it more than once. MAUREEN BEAURY : Two cars cannot fit there now so I don't really see how you need to be a pretty good driver to get two (2) cars in the front of that property. CHIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have the survey here and I'm just looking at this 10 foot wide side yard and that's wide enough to be a driveway I mean just gravel just something pervious and you could then pull two (2) cars in along here. That's about it. Anything from anybody else? Oh dear didn't even see that. MEMBER HORNING : Proposed front yard setback is 16.8 feet what is the existing setback, front yard setback? 13 February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what Bruce, Ken just pointed out to me there's a telephone pole on the street right we have photographs we've seen it and so even pulling up there is going to be problematic. BRUCE ANDERSON : I believe that's the water meter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's the picture. What's this? Looks like it's see this is what we're looking at. Good luck with that. You know what the one option would be to just change the stair. BRUCE ANDERSON : We're happy to change the stair. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what we should do just so as to not delay this is to make sure that what we approve does not then create some code problem with the parking so what we should do is just simply close this subject to receipt of I think of proposed either redesign stair and showing two (2) onsite parking spaces. BRUCE ANDERSON : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Also perhaps if the survey could show the edge of pavement it looks that there might be enough of a bumper between the property line and the edge of pavement to utilize some type of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they redesign the stairs. MEMBER HORNING : Is the existing front yard setback to the stairs the same as what you're proposing. BRUCE ANDERSON : No because it's higher than the (inaudible) run to the stairs. MEMBER HORNING : You could shift it so that the stairwell BRUCE ANDERSON : Well we have to bring them to the side what we would do. MEMBER HORNING : Yea you could do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's do that then. Let's just make sure that at least we can get the parking on the site and I'll leave it up to you to decide if you want to redesign the stair which shouldn't be a big deal. BRUCE ANDERSON : Condition or do you need to see plans I want to be clear. Are you expecting receipt of plans from us? El February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably I mean it's if it'll just be simpler to stamp the thing that you want to do. If you want to redesign the stairs so that then show two (2) onsite parking spaces then just give us another survey showing that and then we can send that to Building and we're done as opposed to back and forth a new site plan whichever. BRUCE ANDERSON : Okay yep we can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we'll at least make sure that issue is taken care of. Anything else from anybody? You can use either mic whichever one you want. Say your name. JULIE LAUDATO : Julie Laudato I just had a couple of comments. As the house stands it's almost five (5) feet above the grade anyway so my concern is cause it is so high already raising up even higher and I know you have addressed you know some of the issues and I thank you for your concern for the rest of us but the day after Sandy I was down there and FEMA was there as well and they never said anything to any of the rest of us about having to raise the houses. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know why? Because the only time FEMA kicks in is if you choose or are required to renovate beyond 50% of the value of the structure. So if you only had minor repairs you would not be required to be FEMA compliant. But if you're going to do some major work then that kicks in and you're required to do that. JULIE LAUDATO : Okay and the water that you were speaking about I mean when we went there the day afterwards just the inside of my house the floors were wet but there was no water inside of the house it had already receded to the outside so if my house is one of the low lying houses and so are all the other ones that go up to the bridge and beyond and that house is almost five (5) feet in the air I'm not even sure where she got all that damage from because the outside structure of her house was fine. It's only afterwards that someone ripped off all the outside all the shingles off the house. I don't know if that was to make it look like there was more damage than there was but I have a number of concerns about how this is all taking place and as far as what you're calling the shed that was the living room. I've been in that house with all the past three owners. It wasn't a shed it was a living room they had a couch in there and the cesspool has not worked in several years because she's had to go across the street to use her mother's house so this has been ongoing issue so those are a number of concerns that I have and also is this going to be postponed until we have further information with these updated plans? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll see what the Board wants to do. It probably won't be postponed. I think we probably have heard as much testimony today as is needed for us to make a decision and okay go ahead. go February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : When some of the shed he's talking about the roofline. He's not actually talking about a shed it's just he's changing the roofline a little bit. JULIE LAUDATO : Okay cause it was not a shed it was actually a living room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a shed roof. It's a style of roof. JULIE LAUDATO : Alright, shed style roof okay. MEMBER DANTES : And with FEMA it doesn't necessarily mean you have damage to the house to have to be compliant it's just if you want to renovate the house. JULIE LAUDATO : Oh cause they never said anything to anybody else so I'm shocked that this took place with one home and not the rest of us. MEMBER DANTES : I'm just saying it's not damage that triggers it. If you want to make additions and alterations and renovation that can also trigger FEMA compliance. JULIE LAUDATO : Okay alright and what about the stairs in the front and the fact that there is no parking. They've only ever been able to barely park CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've just addressed that. JULIE LAUDATO : One car there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just addressed that so they're going to be in compliance with two (2) onsite parking spaces and if they need to redesign the stair going sideways instead of this way you know with a wind or a platform you know a landing and then up again they'll work on that and they'll submit that to us so that whatever they come up with will allow them to put two (2) cars on the property. JULIE LAUDATO : And will everyone else that's surrounds that house be apprised of how this is going to go and how will they do all this construction when there is barely any space on that property? What will they do with the house? How will they get in there with all the equipment? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's going to be up to the builder to figure out. They are not allowed without any neighbors permission to be on any neighboring properties. So they're going to have to figure it out. JULIE LAUDATO : Okay because I do not give consent for anyone to be on the property. I don't want it damaged by heavy equipment. It's soft enough there as it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's understood. February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting JULIE LAUDATO : Alright, thank you for your time. MEMBER DANTES : If you want what you can do is you can get like little tiny sticks and put them in the ground and then people won't be able to park on top you know like what people use for snow plows to identify your property. JULIE LAUDATO : Alright thank you thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? Okay. You gotta come to the microphone please. State your name. SUE CAMRAMSKI : Sue Camramski and I just wanted to say that I live in East Marion since 1981. 1 live up on the hill and the property adjacent that property is private property and you know nobody wants people parking on that property there. If you're going to build that you know a storage area where it seems that are they trying to make this a year round home? Is this a seasonal structure that's going to be in place? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't know. SUE CAMRAMSKI : Or is this going to be a year round permit? That's you know I don't know. It doesn't fit in. It would be like an eyesore going up that high you know because it seems like you can get an extra floor in there and then you know next thing you know that's sold and then the next person comes in and they got you know five (5) cars parked along there you know because they've changed the storage space into three (3) bedrooms that's what you gotta watch for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else? Sorry we tape record this so if you want your comments to be part of the public record then you have to speak into the mic. SUE CAMRAMSKI : Yea I would say that if they had the property it would be a different story. You know like if you were on an acre of property and you had room for a septic and you know everybody put their places back right away after it happened I mean I got hit with hurricane Gloria you know you didn't wait three years to get that place you know gutted out and put back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just do want to reiterate what Eric Dantes member Dantes said. Anybody any of you any of us have the right to renovate our homes at any time for any reason and it doesn't have to be related to a storm. Sometimes things just need upgrading or you have the money and you feel like doing it. You got grandchildren and you want to make another bedroom on your house whatever it is we're not here because of storms. We're here because the applicant chose to renovate the dwelling beyond 50% of the value of the appraised value of the house which then says okay you can renovate but the only way you can renovate is if legally February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting you make this flood zone compliant and this is going to happen to every one of us that are in a flood zone. And it's because the government is fed up with these billions of dollars worth of you know losses that we're all facing because we don't know how to build in a flood zone. So, it's frustrating because this is a transition time for us. If you look at Rabbit Lane you'll you know just look at it you'll see they were all just little cottages and suddenly there's a really big one and then they made it from one story to two story on top of stilts or whatever. It's going to happen across town because it is legally required by the Federal Government to make things compliant when they're in a flood zone. So, it's difficult for all of us to look at the neighborhoods we're used to seeing for countless years and to watch them change into what appeared to be out of scale with whatever else is around but the house itself is basically the same size as the house was. It's just higher up. Okay. I don't think there's anything else we really need to last comment. JULIE LAUDATO : I'm sorry as far as the parking there is also just besides having the stairs come out or change the direction there is a tree right at the property line on my side of the property which they will have to somehow get through as well to get a car into that area and I know that's not designated on the survey that you have. Just my last comment about the height is I understand that they need to go up for flood and I totally understand that that will change the character of the neighborhood all along and years to come but they are going above and beyond that to the detriment to the people around them without consideration for them. I just the size of the property the height of the house make it an eye sore and (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I actually checked with the Town Engineer on these different elevations and looked at the Trustees record to be honest the I thought it sounded like a big deal. When I actually looked at the difference in elevation it really isn't something that's all that noticeable believe it or not from you know what they're proposing to what the base minimum would be. I was concerned about that and I thought it looked very you know like why make it even worse but upon really looking at it with the Engineer it would appear that it is not that grand a difference so that you know like it would make a big deal if they brought it down. You know the Board will have to look at what FEMA minimum FEMA requirements are and what they're proposing and the consequences of additional elevation on that very small side yard. MEMBER HORNING : Didn't Bruce Anderson testify that the overall height of the building was met was conforming? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Definitely it's 22 feet high to the ridge and the code permits 35 feet height so they're not here for a height variance it's not like all of sudden they're not they're up in the air and now they don't conform to the maximum height permitted by the code. The code permits 35 feet. This just gonna be visually different than what you're used to. It has to be and I ON February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting can certainly empathize with your concerns about what it's going to look like because it's very hard for most people to read plans look at them and say oh my gosh in context what's it really gonna look like and you know it's gonna look different. We have to get going on this. JOE FISCHETTI : Yea just a quick comment we never build we never build to the FEMA height. You cannot build to exactly a foot. So in other words if we're required to go two (2) feet above and we're 6 to 8 we would never build. I would never design a house to be at eight (8) feet cause we can't build it at eight (8) feet. What if there was a mistake and we're lower? We always build at least a foot higher. We have to build a foot higher because we have because we're building construction. So, that means we're a foot higher so we're talking about two (2) feet here. This is not and I'm glad you brought that up it is so they're worried about two (2) feet. I mean it's not a big deal so it's not three (3) feet it really is under normal construction we would be at least eight (8) feet. We would never build exactly at FEMA height because you can't build exact nine (9) feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? Hearing no further comments I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of a survey or a site plan showing existing trees and two (2) on-site parking spaces with redesign steps if needed and the edge of the line of the edge of the pavement. MEMBER HORNING : Well the redesign step would further mitigate front yard setback. BRUCE ANDERSON : The line of the edge of pavement is involves surveying the town road. Is that what you're asking us to do now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well it would show where the edge of pavement is and perhaps you could use some of that buffer area between your property line and edge of pavement to perhaps park a vehicle and not be in the road. BRUCE ANDERSON : Okay I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's really looking at the shoulder to see whether you can utilize some of that MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It would be a rough estimate and perhaps an engineer could do it with a tape measure and if you have an established property corner or property line already I believe you may have that already staked out if I'm not mistaken you know it's an approximation. We're clearly not looking at a setback issue where you would want more precise measurements just you know edge of pavement could never really be that precise anyway I believe you know February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting especially on that road. You follow while I'm asking? I think that would relieve some of the concern of sort of at least appearing that you're parking on your property. Okay. And do you plan to keep those trees in the front as well? Not that that is a requirement but through construction I guess you'll have to make that call. BRUCE ANDERSON: Right. JULIE LAUDATO : The one front tree is my tree and it's staying there. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Fine CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look the applicant is not permitted JULIE LAUDATO : There's two trees there one sits they are in the front but the one tree is Mrs. Cooke's the other tree is mine. So you know (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alrighty hearing no further questions or comments once again I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of an amended survey or site plan showing two (2) on-site parking spaces. Is there a second? MEMBER HORNING: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6831 ROBERT W. DIXON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Robert W. Dixon # 6831 Request for a Waiver of Merger under Article 11, Section 280-10A, to unmerge land identified as SCTM # 1000-38-6-5, based on the Building Inspector's December 15, 2014 Notice of Disapproval, which states a nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot held in common ownership until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule (minimum 40,000 square feet in this R-40 Residential Zone District) this lot is IE February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting merged with lot 1000-38.-6-6, located at: 555 & 545 South Lane (corner West Lane) East Marion, NY SCTM#'s 1000-38-6-5&6. Just one second cause we've got some paperwork that I just want to make sure I put it in my file. MS. MOORE: Yes please. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MS. MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of the Dixon family and Trust. Robert Dixon is here with me he's right here blue shirt so if there are any issues questions that I can't answer I'm going to defer to him and then hopefully we can get all your questions answered. I dropped off a memo with exhibits yesterday I don't know if you've had a chance to review it. It was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we haven't actually that's why I was going to try to find it to put it in the file. MS. MOORE : Yea it has it was essentially what I've already given you the first page was pretty much what I had the waiver of merger standards but in the meantime I did also get additional information and I have some items as exhibits. The I wanted to point out that the adjacent parcel received a waiver of merger in 2009. That was the Miggins application and I have the Migging's decision as exhibit B and that was a very similar example in that the Miggins was actually O'Neal and I forgot the other person's name but it was the Miggins Mrs. Miggin's family that had owned the property for the most part at the same time that the Dixon family has owned the property and over time it was necessary to sell them but when they were read to sell they discovered that the lot had merged. So, similarly here we have the same circumstances which we were my clients contacted me with respect to the sale of the house which is in contract and through the process I learned that there was a lot next door and we checked and sure enough the merger occurred when Mrs. Dixon was the owner. She bought directly from the Thorpe family which were the developers of this subdivision or this property and the subdivisions surrounding subdivision. We did receive some comments and opposition from two neighbors. I provided to you the with respect to Ms. Steinbugler which I just noticed I misspelled her name so I apologize to Ms. Steinbugler. She's actually the person who purchased the Miggins house so it her complaints didn't seem to be relevant but we addressed them anyway. One of the issues she raised was so these were you know undersized these roads were somehow another not to Town standards but in fact I would disagree with the roads are perfect condition. They have been maintained by the association well and if you go back to the 1960's the way that developers at the time would have would approve roads they would file road maps with the County and this particular set of roads North Lane, West, East West and South Lane as well as the beach area was filed with the County Clerk back in the 1960's and it shows the width of the lots excuse me width of the roads and the lots that were anticipated to be February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting developed around them. So the roads are certainly adequate. I know from the Miggins application sometimes the Board asks for information as far as how many lots remain vacant. I actually had that information from the Miggins application and that is attached as exhibit D and we had as of the research that was done for the Miggins application at that time there were only five (5) lots vacant. The and two (2) of them one was Miggins and one was Dixon so aside that would three (3) lots and quite frankly I there very few and the area that I was researching on the Miggins application was actually a greater distance than just the immediate adjacent properties. So out of 36 lots we show five (5) lots that are vacant. I provided that for the Board as well. Mr. Jones another neighbor had some issues which quite frankly were irrelevant. Mr. Dixon responded to them and I've provided that as a letter by email thank you Vicki. She forwarded that to the Board and a copy should be in your file. One of the issues that he raised was Oh the Dixons only paid for one lot again that's error on his part that I have a copy of the Old Orchard Homeowner's Association. My client in his letter states that no when you own contiguous properties unimproved one lot is unimproved contiguous to the house the Association only charges for the house for the improved property. That is very common in most of the Associations because obviously the roads and amenities if you have a vacant lot you haven't yet availed yourself of any of the use of it so that's very common but now the Old Orchard Homeowner's Association I have its Section 3 which says that an owner of more than one noncontiguous property so if it's a contiguous property the you become a member and you pay an association an assessment for each property. So if you have a contiguous vacant lot you're not paying for an assessment of that vacant lot. It doesn't in any way come imply that the property is non -buildable or it merged it's just a way the assessments are collected so I"Il put that in your file which is one copy (hands out copies). I highlighted the (inaudible—away from the microphone). I do in my memo I also listed the numerous variances that have been issued in this neighborhood. It is for the most part a pre-existing non -conforming neighborhood as the subdivision is from the 60's. The waterfront lots I noticed from doing my research all the waterfront lots that I could tell had homes that were closer than 50 feet to the bulkhead however because they were pre-existing those did not result in any variance applications that every single lot bases however there were some lots that did get variances and I've listed those. My exhibit A also gives the little tax map it's in handwriting which was identifying in the most immediate waterfront lots as well as West Lane lots who had variances and who which properties at least have variances in this area. I've listed all the variances in my memo itself but the highlighted tax map shows the different variances that are within 200 feet of the subject properties. MEMBER HORNING : For a variety of variances? ON February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MS. MOORE : Variety the only the only variance that dealt wfth the waiver of merger because again we only have a very few number of lots vacant lots was the Miggins property and that actually that property is the mirror image of the Dixon property. MEMBER HORNING: When was the house built? MS. MOORE : We were just talking about that actually in the hallway the 50's we believe. MEMBER HORNING: Prior to zoning? MS. MOORE : Yes. The house the original house was prior to zoning. MEMBER HORNING : I didn't see a C of 0 or anything. MS. MOORE: It predates CO's so. MEMBER HORNING : Do you have a pre-existing C.O.? Is there MS. MOORE : There is a C.O. for the addition. There was a C.O. I think I did submit it the C.O. for this second floor addition had a permit as I recall. Let me look oh yea here its right here. It's in the packet we show well it shows as a private one family dwelling with additions that was in 1977. That was again another addition in 1973 let me see if there is a pre C.O. I'm sorry '77, '73. MEMBER HORNING: Well what are you looking at by the way? MS. MOORE : The one that was attached is C.O. #Z7600. MEMBER HORNING: I mean where do we find it? MS. MOORE: Oh it was in the big packet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no it's not what she gave you it's in our packets, MEMBER HORNING: Oh okay. MS. MOORE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat would you just go through the single and separate stuff the line of inheritance. MS. MOORE : Of course, sure not a problem. Let me pull it right from the single and separate. Okay do you want to look at the lot itself start there? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yea. UN February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MS. MOORE : Okay, lot number 5 that's the vacant parcel. It appears that the property if you go back far enough the Thorpe family and Frank Thorpe, Lois Johnson and others they were the ones who developed the property. They took title in '49 and looks like that's when the subdivision was created because it says premises and more so in '51 at some point '51 looks like the parcel was created subject premises when it was conveyed to William Howard. In the 50's lots were created by deed rather than if they were doing some random lots rather than major subdivision so these lots while they're part of the Orchard Old Orchard subdivision and overall scheme these parcels were actually by deed describe premises by Thorpe back in the 50's. So, William Howard and Ruth Howard took title that was the first owner of the lot. Looks like maybe Ruth passed away in somewhere but not necessarily in Suffolk County because William took got title. William Howard in '66 conveyed the property sold the property to Dorothy H. Dixon that is Mr. Dixon's mother. So, when Dorothy Dixon passed away we have in 1999 that Robert Dixon and Mary Elizabeth Silver who were who's Mr. Dixon's sister they were the beneficiaries (inaudible) under the Last Will and Testament of Dorothy Dixon and at that point when the estate was distributed Robert Dixon took or essentially there was a distribution and assets and Mr. Dixon got the value of the lot while Mary would of gotten another asset. So that shows to be the last deed of record. It's remained in Robert Dixon thru the Dixon family since the 60's. Then we have the adjacent premises which is the house that shows as being conveyed again from Thorpe the developer to Edna Smith. Edna Smith passes away sometime prior to '61 and in '61 Dorothy purchases the house directly from the estate of Smith. Again when Mrs. Dixon passes away the property is conveyed to thru the Estate Robert Dixon and Mary Elizabeth Silver the Mr. Dixon and his sister are the executors of the will and in '99 Robert Dixon gets title to the house as well. MEMBER HORNING : Is Bonnie Dixon his wife? MS. MOORE : Bonnie is no Bonnie no it goes after that in 2008 the house is with Robert Dixon and Bonnie Thompson Dixon and it's put into a trust a revocable trust. MEMBER HORNING : Is Bonnie his sister? MS. MOORE: No, Bonnie is his wife. MEMBER HORNING: His wife. MS. MOORE : They married later what year maybe 29 years ago. So they were married at the time but instead of going directly you know as husband and wife it went into a trust ultimately. So as you can see the property was purchased from different individuals but unfortunately at the time nobody really thought about the zoning end of it and the properties got merged or were merged. Im February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : When is the approximate date of when they were merged? MS. MOORE : Technically they merged was is it '85 when the code says that if they're in common ownership in'85 so MEMBER HORNING: Or after. MS. MOORE : Or after yea well it was in common ownership with Dixon the mother from'66 to '85 but it was not you know it didn't affect anything at that point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from anybody? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No questions from me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Please state your name for us. DAN MCMONIGLE : My name is Dan Mcmonigle from East Marion. I just want to verify something I know. The description of a building lot under today's code is 40,000 sq. ft. am I right or wrong? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're right. DAN MCMONIGLE : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Under R40 zoning. That's a conforming lot. You're welcome. Anyone else in the audience? GENIVEVE MCMONIGLE : Geniveve McMonigle and our properties are contiguous. We bought our property from the Thorpe family in 1977 and it was explained to us that that lot which now they would like to unmerge would never be built on because it's on a corner and that's my concern. Could a house go up there today? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure GENIVEVE MCMONIGLE : It could? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes MEMBER HORNING: If it was unmerged. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's unmerged. GENIVEVE MCMONIGLE : That's my objection. February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Becomes a lot that's of the same size as quite a lot of other lots. GENIVEVE MCMONIGLE : I don't think it's the same size as the one that was unmerged for Miggins. That was a larger lot. MS. MOORE : It was a different configuration but the house, the Miggins property as I recall if we go by my memory it's here right one lot was it they were they were a little bit different in configuration. The one on the corner was maybe square and the one behind it that maybe is right behind you was a smaller square. They didn't quite GENIVEVE MCMONIGLE : It's a much larger piece of property. Yes. MS. MOORE : Well not much. It's based on GENIVEVE MCMONIGLE : My concern would be if a house goes up on that lot where would they put the cesspool you know and all of the other required things? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's what would have to happen should these lots be unmerged any construction would have to conform to the Building Codes that's the Bulk Schedule. That means the septic that means the setbacks and so on. So it would probably be a pretty small house it could be established in a code conforming building envelope. If they choose to not conform they would have to come back before this Board. It would go in to get a Building Permit. The Building Department would say no you can't do that, you're too close to the side yard, you're too close to the rear yard or whatever it might be and a corner lot is especially burdened because they have two (2) front yards. I know cause I live in one and so you have you know kind of greater setback requirements to be conforming cause you would have to conform to two (2) front yard setbacks. Side yards are smaller okay. So, that's what would happen. If they chose to build on it they would have to go to the Building Department with plans that conform to what the law would allow them to do. GENIVEVE MCMONIGLE : I think it would be a little dangerous exact you know where it is. We have a lot of children that just run free in that area. We have dirt roads and it's just a nice community. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well nobody really likes change but the bottom line is there are property rights and if it's a building lot it's a building lot you know. GENIVEVE MCMONIGLE : We had friends who had property in Gardiner's Bay and they also had two (2) separate parcels and didn't even know that they had been merged and then CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Almost no one knows. 26 February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting GENIVEVE MCMONIGLE : Yeah when they were selling their property it was really a surprise. They had two (2) separate deeds two (2) separate parcels. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is what happened we were talking about this earlier when the Town up -zoned basically to make sure that there wasn't too much over development because they were even then aware that septic systems were causing you know nitrate loading and were not healthy for the environment. They did not do a very good job in informing the public. Everybody continued to get two (2) property tax bills and everyone said well how did I know I got two bills I can show you the two bills. That happens every single time with everybody in town. They simply did not spend the money or take the time probably thru the assessor's office they should of notified any property owners that you know had contiguous properties that were jointly held and they just thought it was probably an overwhelming job or whatever reason the Town did not notify people and it's usually under inheritance or some other odds that are circumstances that somebody you know somebody comes in to go to sell a lot or whatever it is and then they suddenly realize by force of law they really only have one (1) lot but they put in place this whole waiver of merger so that if the lots were originally by deed conforming to what the subdivision was or neighborhood was and it was not sold to a separate party it was kept in the same family then by virtue of our reviewing it the Zoning Board they could be restored to what they originally were. That's it in a nutshell. DAN MCMONIGLE : Just for information the two (2) lots that my wife was speaking of our friends had purchased them at different times and each lot they paid separate taxes on. MEMBER HORNING : Could I ask a reference where are you located in relation to this? You're north. Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? MS. MOORE : Oh just to clarify let me just show her the map just so I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Does the Board have any other questions? MS. MOORE : Just I'm going to put something on the record for a moment. Just she's probably not aware of it that lot number 3 which is her property actually received a set off back in 1976. Thorpe pursued the set off and got variances and I've written the number 2223 when Thorpe when up -zoning occurred I think it was like back in '75 or that this property got stuck in the up - zoning and so they had to go and get a subdivision setoff for this parcel. So, MEMBER HORNING : For a front yard footage? February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MS. MOORE : No for creation of the lot for the actual MEMBER HORNING : Just lot creation. MS. MOORE : Yeah yeah yeah it wouldn't so there house was built on what was a undersized setoff parcel so which was very common everyone here has. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'm going I almost made it. DAN MCMONIGLE : Yes we did buy the property in '77 but we didn't build a house until '85 if that makes any difference. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't. Okay hearing no further questions or comments from the Board I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserving decision until later date. MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Thank you very much. Have a good day. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6830 — DAVID TURNER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is David Turner # 6830 Request for Variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 5, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling, at; 1) less than the code required minimum single side yard setback of 5 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at : 640 West Shore Drive (adj. to Southold Bay) Southold, NY. SCTM # 1000- 80-1-47.1 So we are looking at a proposed deck with a single side yard setback of five (5) feet where the code requires ten (10) foot minimum and a combined side yard setback of 16 feet where the code requires a minimum of 25 feet. And you're proposing to add 180 sq. foot deck. Is that correct? February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MR. TURNER: Approximately 10 by 15 it's a wood deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please just state your name for the record will you. DAVID TURNER : David Turner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. You said it's about 10 by 15 feet. Okay. Now you were given priors if you remember variance relief #6658 to demolish an existing single family dwelling with a 58.4 foot bulkhead setback with conforming side yards and an accessory garage moved to a conforming location. So, why now when we granted conforming side yards you build this new house on a pretty narrow lot are you back before us with this request? DAVID TURNER : Well originally I put by the kitchen I had a door that exited the first floor onto wood steps that went down on the east side of the property and it turns out that this is more space on the west side of the property I want I'm flipping the stair that goes down half a level to the yard to the west side and then I thought I'd put a small deck there so I could walk out and you know have a drink or whatever on that deck. The deck is elevated about approximately four (4) feet in the air at the level pretty much of the floor and not obstructing anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well its obstructing your side yard by 50%. Otherwise you wouldn't have to be here you just go and do it. DAVID TURNER : I mean I'm not proposing to put it out on the waterside I'm putting it on the side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that would require an even greater variance probably. You can put an on grade patio down anywhere you want and get the same waterview. DAVID TURNER : In other words my floor is about four (4) feet above the grade so rather than climb down four (4) feet it's a matter of comfort that I can open a door and just step out on a small deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How far you provided a site plan here how far is it from the side yard to the steps? DAVID TURNER : To the steps here? I would say it's about ten (10) feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ten feet. So, if you cut back the deck to where these steps are you would then have a conforming side yard. You wouldn't need a variance. In other words if you remove this much deck you still have a pretty good sized deck and you wouldn't need and you'd still have a ten (10) foot side yard and you would be conforming. DAVID TURNER : I'm trying to grab as much deck as I can I don't think it's affecting anybody. in February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the only reason that we try and keep these side yards conforming which is what you know why we granted what we granted is for the safety of fire emergency equipment and so on gaining access. You have a pretty good size side yard on the other side the problem is you have a garage right in front of it and so you can't access that side yard you see. DAVID TURNER: That's right. MEMBER DANTES : I think Leslie that also the neighbors got a non -conforming garage that's within less than five (5) feet of line. DAVID TURNER: Three (3) feet. MEMBER DANTES : So I don't think there's any way to access that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On this side yea that's what I'm saying you can't. I'm sorry would you go back to the mic just because we're recording and we need to pick it up. I think what I'm saying is that you can accomplish what you want without a need for a variance. DAVID TURNER : When I spoke with the building examiner I think that even when I mentioned the ten (10) feet he mentioned that I'd have to go in front of the zoning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably because of the combined side yard. MEMBER HORNING: Which needs to be 25. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It needs to be 25. This would be 21. You see you had 14 and 11 so you had conforming combined individual single side yards and combined were conforming and so you would get rid of one variance which would be the single side yard but you will then still need a variance for the non -conforming combined side yards. DAVID TURNER : I have no problem increasing the setback could do a compromise say eight (8) feet or something I want to grab as much deck as I can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look what you're doing is then saying eight (8) feet is wide enough for emergency equipment and it's not. It's a safety issue you know. Ten (10) feet is a minimum for a reason. If you had room on the other side I would say okay you know you could maybe encroach a little bit into that side yard. But you have DAVID TURNER : I mean if it's gotta be ten (10) feet I'm okay with that you know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ten (10) foot side yard as opposed to the fourteen (14) foot and then there's one variance required. Any questions from the Board or comments or anything like 3 February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting that? Is there anyone in the audience who wished to address this application? Hearing no further comments or questions I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Who second it? MEMBER HORNING: I did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George. Okay thank you very much. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6828 — RICK NAPPI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Rick Nappi #6828 Request for Variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article XXII Section 280-116B and the Building Inspector's December 3, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for 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 minimum single side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located at 5218 Peconic Bay Boulevard (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) Laurel, NY. SUM # 1000-128-2-22. MIKE KIMACK : Mike Kimack for the applicant. I want to know did you receive the larger portion of these or did I give you the smaller ones. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Of what? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just got is this 280 Bay that's a different one. Let's see what we've got hold on a minute. MIKE KIMACK : This has occurred before. There's always a disconnect between the architect and the contractor. He may go in there and the architect's not around may find some damage. I just had it occur with one of my other projects and he went back and he found termite damage. I had designated as partial demolition and he took the whole thing down and the Building February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting Inspector showed up and rightly put a stop work order on the project and now I'm back before as a matter of fact a letter came to you on that one asking for a modification CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A deminimis. MIKE KIMACK: and I'm back before the wetlands changing their permit so I don't think that first floor it's intended to stay but there may be some damage that simply can't be avoided and I wanted some flexibility to make sure that we're covered. The intent is to leave it and the intent always was to leave it. On the drawing you can see that the dark lines are the new and the existings are light lines. There's no intention to take that first floor wall down but add to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken do you have any questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Let's see. In the drawing here on the site plan is that a deck I see? MIKE KIMACK : There's a staircase on the southeast (inaudible) that's coming off that's being taken away. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Existing stoop to remain. MIKE KIMACK : It says existing stoop to be removed. The ones on the back obviously of the entrance remain in the back and the one on the southwest corner stays but the one on the southeast corner comes off. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so that so go to a deck correct or is that MIKE KIMACK : Those steps right now I think I'm not quite sure what they do go to at the present time existing stoop to be removed may go to the deck MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No wait it says existing stoop to remain doesn't it? MIKE KIMACK: To be removed. On the southeast corner? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : South I'm looking at southwest corner I'm sorry. MIKE KIMACK: That stays. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. And that goes to a deck? MIKE KIMACK : Yes I believe it does yea. Or it goes up to the first floor it comes out of the first floor. Nothing physically changes on the property other than the (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Deck over a deck looks like. Is that right Michael deck over a deck? no February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yes because the cellar steps are in the back existing concrete steps and cellar entry to remain and the one on the southwest corner proposed cellar I'm sorry the one that's existing stoop to remain. The one on the other side of the existing (inaudible) is coming off. MEMBER DANTES : No I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING : Let's see I have a question. How old is the building itself and you mentioned having to maybe take out sections that MIKE KIMACK: I think the premises I'm not quite sure exactly I have the property card. MEMBER HORNING: We have a C.O. for a cellar so MIKE KIMACK: It says 1963. MEMBER HORNING : It's prior to 1957 okay. MIKE KIMACK : Yea and the house looks to be a '63 construction '63, '65. Oh it's before that? Sorry. MEMBER HORNING : We just don't have I don't think a C.O. reflecting a preexisting structure. We have one for a cellar in 1985 and it calls for a cellar under an existing dwelling. MIKE KIMACK : Yea I think they must of dug it out probably raised it up and put a cellar under it at that particular time. MEMBER HORNING : So we established that it was built prior to 1957. MIKE KIMACK: Yes MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We have evidence of that Vicki had found a survey for an application for the property to the north of the subject parcel that also shows the applicants dwelling and boat house and that was done in '57 so assuming that the house was built prior at that point I think it was a bungalow or something like that. MIKE KIMACK: They all were. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Prior to zoning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. 33 February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? No further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision until later date. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6829 — 860 BAYVIEW DRIVE, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next hearing before the Board is for 860 Bayview Drive, LLC # 6829 Request for Variance from Article XXII Section 280-116B and the Building Inspector's September 3, 2014, renewed December 15, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct a deck, at 1) less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located at: 860 Bayview Drive (adj. to Spring Pond) East Marion, NY. SCTM # 1000-37-5-7. MIKE KIMACK : Mike Kimack for the applicant. I put your attention to a letter that I drafted on January 29th 2015 that amended my original permit. The original permit simply stated a deck 16 by 24, 57 feet the distance being the same. Since that time the applicant requested he extended a little bit more. We have resubmitted it to be 16 by 27 with a set of stairs on the easterly side and a fireplace on the deck itself and then putting ground level patio all the way underneath it and extending the existing ground level patio also. The drawings were redone and resubmitted by Mark Schwartz basically showing the front elevation and side elevation of what the deck would look like and also with the staircase. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This proposal reduces the side yard setback on the west. MIKE KIMACK : It does, it does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it's still conforming? NN February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yes it's we have that ten (10) foot on the easterly side which is on the upper corner over there. We've got the 25 feet originally it was 28.2 and we slid it over three (3) feet to 25.2 so it's conforming by .2. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The existing dwelling is a conforming 75 foot bulkhead setback? MIKE KIMACK: The foundation does yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we get extra credit for going out to inspect this site with snow up to our armpits? MIKE KIMACK: You should. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have photographic evidence. MIKE KIMACK: That one wasn't so bad though at least CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was another deck I gotta tell ya this was a challenge. MIKE KIMACK: Oh it had to be brutal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I needed my snow shoes for sure. MIKE KIMACK: It's a pretty site. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's like an 18 foot non-conformance to the bulkhead as proposed? MIKE KIMACK: It would be yes it would be 57 it would be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From 75? MIKE KIMACK: Yes from 75. Because the second floor deck hangs over by that two (2) foot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a pretty big deck. MIKE KIMACK : He's got a big family and I knew that was basically gonna come up in terms of he's got that cook area out there. They don't have a swimming pool. They don't have anything else they're living space is to the front. If you look at the property itself the only place they can actually put the deck is to the south. The deck itself there's a stone patio over there, 16 by 27 you know putting a number of people up there with if I was building a deck I'd always try to recommend at least 15 and 16 for moving around five (5) foot tables as such like that. I know it's an extensive deck but with his family and with all of his activities at the house etc. like that they would like to be able to have that for their enjoyment. February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well it's a pretty good sized back yard and it's a pretty good sized patio also. The view is the same whether you're up there or down there it's not like you can argue we want our water view you got a water view MIKE KIMACK : He's got a water view whether the deck is there or not correct. It's a matter of basically having enjoyment of the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And this chimney that you're now proposing is for what? MIKE KIMACK : It's an outdoor grill. If you bring your attention to the drawings basically you'll see it. It doesn't extend all the way to the ground it just on A2 of the architectural drawings you'll see it's just on the deck itself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we don't have plans of the house not that we absolutely had to have them but the question is what is this deck adjacent to on this second floor? MIKE KIMACK : It's adjacent to the recreation living room area on the second floor. Basically so they just come out of the second floor out to the deck. Actually in many respects it is the first floor I apologize because the garage is right down below it although depending upon how much it out of the ground it could well be the second floor. I suspect it probably had been deemed the second floor because the whole front section if you look at the existing with that the garage section the whole section so 50% of it so it's a second floor that deck is coming out of and that would be the living area the living room area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well obviously the law the code requires that we attempt to grant when justified the least variance possible and practical and you know I'm wondering if you can't just make that bulkhead setback bigger than what you're proposing. It's a very big deck when you have big patio down below and so on and you know we as you know we can't personalize variances once they're there it can a totally different family who doesn't need you know the space. We have to look at the code and the health of the creeks and bays and so on not that this deck is really going to cause runoff issues I don't believe it will but MIKE KIMACK : No it's only got three (3) piers basically. We're not dealing with a lot of in ground construction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right there's not a lot of land disturbance it's not that I have any objection at all to having a second story deck the question is the bulkhead setback. MIKE KIMACK : Well, the applicant is not here but obviously if it's a question of approval or disapproval would you consider perhaps going back to 14 feet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I have to see what the Board thinks I think 12 feet is enough. TO February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Twelve feet it's interesting I disagreed on this perspective. When you put if you put tables out there basically and normally people put four five foot tables you need at least four (4) foot in order to put your chairs out and walk around the entire thing so if you've got tables out there basically you got at least as a minimum you know 12 feet's pretty tight. It may not seem like it may seem like a lot but when you start to pack it it really shrinks pretty quickly for movement of people and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know that's true but MIKE KIMACK: and placement of outside accessories. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well again I'm looking at the minimum variance relief to make it at least functional without you know allowing them to have what they want but I don't know see what the rest of the Board thinks. It's fairly flat the property there. MEMBER HORNING : What replaces the stone patio? MIKE KIMACK: Another stone patio. MEMBER HORNING : Another stone patio. MIKE KIMACK : Yea in order what they did he wanted to bring the stone patio even with the front of the deck and central like that and just replace that with another stone patio and bring that completely underneath the deck itself. MEMBER HORNING : So the stone patio will be larger MIKE KIMACK: Somewhat larger yes MEMBER HORNING : But not subject to the bulkhead setback? MIKE KIMACK: But not subject to the bulkhead setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually you know what there is something that was sighted on the LWRP which by the way shows that it's consistent because the second story deck does not increase the ground area coverage and it's not located in the coastal erosion hazard area. However, it does point out that there is a drain pipe it looks like it's going through the is it the bulkhead shown on the survey. Now clearly even in my zeal I was not able to inspect that drain pipe. Not with you know two feet of snow. Can you address that Mike? MIKE KIMACK : At the present time I can't. I'm not quite sure if that drain pipe was the existing house. It obviously can't be attached to any new dry wells that they put in cause that's not a requirement. I'm not quite sure what the drain pipe is for because as George pointed out No February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You see what I'm referring to? MIKE KIMACK : I see it. The land is very flat relatively flat. It probably rises from the concrete retaining wall and it's very interesting they call it a retaining wall because it was not designated a bulkhead by DEC and so I we call it retaining wall on the drawings basically as a concrete one and I don't know what it goes to whether it's even connected at the present time. Until the snow goes I'm not even too sure if I'd see any water running out of it or so. I know that during the construction he had to put not only a whole new septic system in which is on the north side of the property but he would have had to put new dry wells in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can simply address it in a condition into the Building Department that it conform to 236 and have it removed if in fact it's an active drain pipe. MIKE KIMACK : I don't think that would be an issue for the homeowner at all to take it out. My guess would be that it's probably an inactive unit but who knows. You know over the number of years. It would be part of that concrete retaining wall and that concrete retaining wall's been in there long time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, old practices were often to take gutters and put them into plastic piping and just run it MIKE KIMACK : It might have been a direct discharge right out one particular time but we'll find out. If you put the condition in there that would fine to discontinue that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you have any questions or comments or about this? MEMBER DANTES : Yea the only question I'm looking at the shed and just the way the surveyor did it looks like it's over the property line or on the other property? MIKE KIMACK : Yea it certainly is Eric. It's a very, very narrow that's why we posted two (2) signs over there it's a very narrow road coming in. He actually has if you did drive around Knoll Drive for whatever reason but there wouldn't be any reason you will see that he's got his underground power unit right there and he brings his power in along that it's not an access road it's along his property line and then he put the shed on top of it. The only point that I would make is that the corporation that forms the next door property is also only controlled by him. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the shed should be on the property but it's it isn't necessarily something antagonism to the next door neighbor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe it should be moved to their property. MIKE KIMACK: That could be done. I don't think it has a 38 February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's probably not a big deal. MIKE KIMACK : I don't think it's a big deal. I think it's a metal shed storage set. It's probably on some 6 x6's or so and it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A very large Tupperware product. MIKE KIMACK : Probably. It could be readjusted. Although there's a wood wall behind it. That's interesting but we'll look into it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any thoughts about the size of this? MEMBER DANTES : No. The other thing I was going to ask is I'm looking at the shape of the property are there any code conforming locations to build a deck? MIKE KIMACK : The thing is you got your on the Eric on the west side you got your driveway coming in and then behind you got your septic systems and the other side going out to the other property on the easterly side it's not conducive the inside layout of the house wouldn't be able to get access to it from that section of the house and it wouldn't certainly be as enjoyable as having a full view going forward. The house as you can see is set back to the upper corner of the property line. It's reasonably close as it can get and that ten foot line and the 25 on the other side just barely makes the conformance in terms of the side yard setbacks so you couldn't really the house couldn't be pushed that much more back without interfering with the septic system and everything like this so the answer would be that this is most likely the most feasible place to put the deck as in construction both from the view, from the availability of property that had to be constructed on and also from the interior layout of the house that this would be where you would come out to the deck. And he can hit his golf balls from there. MEMBER HORNING : Do you have any information on other non -conforming setbacks in the neighborhood, bulkhead setbacks, variance granted. You submitted some information right? MIKE KIMACK : Hold on a minute. In my presentation to you if you look at what I gave you here Ken I'm sorry George I apologize my glasses are for short view not for long view. George if you look at that and you look at the tax map MEMBER HORNING : Do you want to review any of that with us? MIKE KIMACK : Yea number one (1) is a construction of a new dwelling but number two (2) which is on the other side there is less than the well it's a complete one family dwelling insufficient rear yard setbacks approximately 75 feet from the bulkhead. I tried to give you some with each of the and number six (6) was an approval of a new foundation and additions not less than 73 feet from the bulkhead and like that so there was #4044 approval for an open 11 February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting deck of minimum distance 39.5 feet from the bulkhead and that is number three (3) which would be a little bit further away it's right on the water. So there is precedence certainly to be less than and we're asking for 57 feet and you've granted 39. MEMBER HORNING : Did you want to comment on your number 7? It's a fairly recent variance. MIKE KIMACK : Yea number 7 yea it's not (inaudible) it's all part of it basically. Existing dwelling rear porch at 23 feet from the bulkhead so it's a tough job that you have and it's difficult every property represents in their own way a kind of unique set of circumstances that you're applying these conditions to. We don't think that our request of 57 feet is unreasonable granted the fact that you know your job is to certainly see whether or not you can minimize the impact on the violation so but the distance between the extra 2 or 3 feet between what you may be thinking about and what I'm asking for in and of itself is not going to have any kind of impact. It would make their enjoyment of their deck from their perspective more enjoyable but in terms of what you've decided in other decisions notwithstanding some of them are decks and some of them are complete houses being within that range certainly less than the 75 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody? Anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? Okay hearing no further comments or questions I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DATES: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ME February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6833 — TIMOTHY and GEORGIA QUINN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Timothy and Georgia Quinn # 6833 Request for Variances from Article III Code Section 280-15 and Article XXII Code Section 280-116 and the Building Inspector's November 12, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for accessory in -ground swimming pool, at; 1) location other than the code required rear yard, 2) less than the code required 100 foot setback from top of bluff, located at: 63165 County Route 48 (aka North Road) (adj. to Long Island Sound) Greenport, NY. SCTM # 1000-40-1-14. Good afternoon. We're going to need some green cards from the mailing the required mailing. Thank you. Would you just state your name please for the record we're recording it. GEORGIA QUINN : Sure I'm Georgia Quinn the property owner. JANE STAGEBERG : And I'm Jane Stageberg the Quinn's architect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome to both of you. Before we get have you had a chance to take a look at the LWRP review? That would be the first thing to address. Is what the it's just for the record I'm going to enter you're proposing a 16 by 40 foot gunite swimming pool and in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard location and at 64 feet from the top of the bluff where the code requires 100 feet from top of the bluff. So that's basically what's before us. The survey it looks like it shows 61 feet to the top of the bluff what's going on? GEORGIA QUINN : So we're actually really fortunate that initial variance was granted before we became property owners but Jane was actually the architect that assisted in that project so she's here to help kind of shed some light on the situation. JANE STAGEBERG : Right thank you so I'd like to hand out if I could a few more drawings to the committee so you can understand the history of the variance that was granted in 2005. There are three sheets here. So the order of the pages that I just handed out the first page is a copy of the survey that was done in 2004 and this survey formed the basis of the variance that was granted in 2005. So the you can see in the on the north side of the house there's a wood stoop and step that was a pre-existing condition that was considered when we requested placing a deck closer than 100 feet of the bluff. So the second page is a survey with a 2005 deck overlaid onto that survey that shows the relationship of the northwest corner of the deck is being in line with the northern face of that step on the north face of the house. So, the third sheet shows was the plan basis for the ZBA approval and this is the actual drawing that was submitted and approved at that time and I just want to call your attention to the dimension 61 foot 8 inches. The drawing at the time of the approval that dimension was called out as 64 feet and so we've been we spent quite a bit of time going through our documents and records trying to February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting understand that discrepancy. We did ask the survey to go back to this site and take a look at that condition. He did record that is 68 feet and you'll see that on the most recently performed survey that was done in September of this year of 2014. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is the existing deck is 68 feet? JANE STAGEBERG : Yes. So this existing deck is 61 feet or 61.8 feet from the northwest corner to what is determined to be the top of the bluff. MEMBER DANTES : Wait when you say 61.8 you mean 61 feet 8 inches? JANE STAGEBERG : Correct correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not 68 feet. JANE STAGEBERG : No no 61 feet 8 inches. So that's the condition that we started with. This wood deck on the west side of the house when the Quinn's and I started working together on determining where a pool might best be located on this site. We elected to design the pool and locate it within this existing deck to both minimize the amount of soil disturbance and impact on the rest of this site. One of the drawings that we submitted in our drawing package to you was the site section which you'll see in the original documents that we submitted that shows the kind of cut and fill situation that is being proposed by the new deck. The deck is quite a number of feet above grade. The site topography slopes quite a bit toward the south so the top of the bluff is anywhere between four (4) and five (5) feet above the north face of the existing deck and then the grade continues to slope to the south. MEMBER DANTES : Since the variance was granted has there been any change in the condition of the bluff maybe have you lost any pieces of the bluff due to storm damage? JANE STAGEBERG : I don't believe so I mean the there are some steps which preceded the 2004 work and I believe those have been any kind of site disturbance might have been impacted those steps and those steps seem to be in very good condition. GEORGIA QUINN : Since we've and we've been only been there you know (inaudible) two (2) years the steps and the bluff has maintained it's (inaudible) some major storms as you know that we've had so at least in the time that we've been living there we haven't experienced any (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name please. TIMOTHY QUINN : Timothy Quinn. I was just going to point out the 2004 survey which we just submitted measured the bluff at the same spot as the 2014 survey that we just commissioned February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting so this might be a clerical error between the 64 feet from the bluff versus the 61.8. That measurement is actually consistent over the last decade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the decision really had some sort of an error in it relative to the dimensions that were approved. GEORGIA QUINN : Exactly and the important thing is the pre-existing wood step and stoops that footprint has been maintained so the existing deck that we have now only you know goes to the point of that pre-existing structure it wasn't built over and above what you know was already there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the deck that was proposed and that obtained relief was at that point at 61.8? JANE STAGEBERG : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is anything in the coastal erosion hazard zone looks like it's not. JANE STAGEBERG: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Anyplace conforming that you could put a proposed swimming pool on the property? JANE STAGEBERG : Well because the because of the nature of the waterfront site the front yard would be conforming. The front yard we looked extensively at possibilities of locating the pool in the front yard. If the pool were to be close to the house I think you can see on the 2014 survey there's a wooded area and some very large mature trees that we would have to keep clear of so the only place that would really be hospitable to a pool would be quite far into the front yard which would require a four (4) foot fence on all sides. It's at a low point in this site of course it would be no views to the water and we felt that in terms of the spirit of the code and desire to keep structures of this nature somewhat discreet that the front yard location wasn't really a very attractive possibility. And also you know I don't know if the issues of safety play into it but it would certainly be more visible from the public road and more in that vein be more conducive to being perhaps encouraging trespassing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything else? MEMBER DANTES : It looks like the entire pool is going to be within the footprint of the existing deck? JANE STAGEBERG : No the pool actually extends to the west to within a setback of 25 feet from the property line on the west side and then it does extend a number of feet to the south of the NN February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting existing deck. So you can kind of see the existing deck ends roughly in line with the end of the south side of the house south face to get a slightly longer pool we're extending it to the south. MEMBER DANTES : Okay but (inaudible) to the existing waterside of the deck. JANE STAGEBERG : Correct absolutely and then it also creates a space as sort of under croft space where we intend to locate the pool equipment thereby enclosing it in a sound proof enclosure. MEMBER DANTES : And then do you have do you plan on using a dry well to handle the pool dewatering? JANE STAGEBERG: We do yes. MEMBER DANTES: I think you've answered all my questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well it looks like there's a pretty steep slope in the front yard anyway. It's a little hard with that much snow to really evaluate what's going on there. You're already proposing landscape screening from the only neighbor that could actually see the pool and it's a pretty big side yard setback. Do you happen to know what the setback the front yard setback is from 48 all the way back to your house? Quite far. Fairly wooded sloping terrain. You have to scale it I guess. Just curious. If it's a problem don't worry about it. It isn't essential just very curious. JANE STAGEBERG : I think it's about it's in excess of 200 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is the proposed landscape? JANE STAGEBERG : Correct and that's the drawing that was done by Peter Sterling from Plantings by the Sea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I don't have any further questions. George? MEMBER HORNING : No I have none. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken anything? Is there anyone else in the audience? Yea they are going to need a drywell and I don't know that I saw that on the proposal but JANE STAGEBERG : We didn't address that at this point but we certainly will. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you want to speak to this application? Please state your name for the record. 44 February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting ANTHONY TOHILL : Good morning Anthony Tohill I'm an attorney 12 First St. Riverhead, NY. I represent Nugent and Stern who are the contiguous westerly neighbors the people closest to the proposed swimming pool and we're here to ask please if there would be inserted as conditions to any grant of approval for the variances that the pool equipment as has been already addressed by the architect. Be enclosed as far away from our property as is possible under the deck if it's possible in a noise attenuating enclosure it was mentioned it would be in a sound proof enclosure that's noise attenuating as far as I know so that would be acceptable to us. Any outdoor lights as a second condition, we would ask of the shoe box variety meaning that they cast the light down as a matter of safety for people around that pool but not cast the light to the west or in any other direction so as to create a light trespassing situation. The third would be that any audio equipment be limited to the extent that the pool like a tennis court or basketball court any outdoor recreational area always generates some noise if we can limit the amount of noise by condition to the grant that would be much appreciated. And finally we would ask that the evergreen there are some evergreens in that planting plan and we would ask that there be a line of evergreens or some form of evergreens along the common boundary line and at that the planting of those evergreens be a condition of the issuance of any C.O. for the swimming pool. So four (4) conditions two (2) of which have been essentially addressed by the applicant's representative and two (2) of which are in addition. That's all that we would have to offer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much. MEMBER HORNING : Sir are you submitting that in writing? ANTHONY TOHILL : Okay I'll do that this afternoon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The town has a noise code you now frankly which tells hours of operation for when any of us can start partying and then turn town the boom box as I refer to it that's automatically taken care of and certainly the dry well is important for pool dewatering and the sound proof equipment you know enclosure you already addressed and evergreen screening is incorporated into the proposed landscape plan so it looks like your clients concerns are going to be addressed by actually what the applicant is offering but we always actually put with rare exception inevitably we've put down enclosing the pump equipment in a sound deadening container. Now those swimming pools are getting better and better and better now the pump equipment is not nearly as egregious with the amount of noises it used to be which was really an issue you know I mean especially if somebody had a bedroom or something on that side of the property so that and the dry well are pretty standard conditions on swimming pools for those reasons. Often screening is as well of course you will still need the required fence a code conforming fence and enclosure that's just a code thing. Anyone else in the ME February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting audience? Okay, hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Thank you very much. We'll have a decision in like two weeks from today. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6832 MARY A. HOVEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Mary A. Hovey # 6832 Request for Variances from Article III Section 280-15 and Article XXII Section 280-116B and the Building Inspector's October 31, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for "as built" accessory garden shed, at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet, 2) less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located at: 4500 Ole Jule Lane (adj. to a canal) Mattituck, NY. SCTM # 1000-122-4-32. Would you state your name for us. MARY HOVEY: Mary Hovey and this is my husband Nick Morella. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking at an "as built" accessory garden shed and sort of a gazebo sitting on a deck with a four (4) foot distance from the property line the code now says ten (10) feet and at a 12.5 foot bulkhead setback where the code requires a 75 foot bulkhead setback for a structure. You indicated also provided some aerial photography showing the existence for approximately 25 years in this location. MARY HOVEY : Well actually the aerial photograph was from 1976 at the cut off when it would have been grandfathered unfortunately the shed does not appear on that photograph but I did deduce from the previous owners comments and the time frame which I 'd be happy to detail for you that that shed has been there a minimum of 26 years now and it's been there longer because that's just the date that the previous owner purchased the property and the shed was February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting there when he purchased it. So, my only reason for making that a point is that it's been there a very long time. It's very stable it withstood no damage in Sandy although I have two and half feet of water in my basement and it's habitat herons land on it things live under it and I was reading the report from the water front revitalization program and they make a point to avoid permanent or unnecessary disturbance within buffer areas and if I were to move the shed or remove it I believe that that would cause a great deal of disturbance to that area and that the most prudent thing to do is to just leave it be. Been there quite a long time and then my second concern is there's actually no place to move that shed to conform to existing code. My house was built in 1964 1 believe and it's just look at the survey it's not set back far enough obviously to today's code and the setback the 75 feet from the bulkhead my house is actually 71 feet correctly the back of the house from the bulkhead so there is no place in the back yard to move that shed. The only alternative is somewhere in the front which I think would be might be objectionable from my neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know if there are any other sheds in the front yard? On waterfront properties sheds are a front yard location is conforming. MARY HOVEY: Oh is it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah for just the reason I mean you keep them away from the water. A lot of people put sheds garden sheds and so on like near their driveway in the front yard and that would be a conforming location. MARY HOVEY : Okay. There are currently no sheds in the front in my neighborhood. There are several sheds in the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How did this actually come to be before the Zoning Board at this time if it's been there for all that time? MARY HOVEY : I presently work for a real estate company and I decided to get it legal just so that if I decide to sell the property I don't have any problems. Actually when we bought the house it was we were informed that it was not a legal shed and we asked that the owner remove it but my real estate agent came back to me and said oh no you'll want it. Being a first time homeowner I didn't realize that I was buying the problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That someone else had created. MARY HOVEY: Had I to do it over again I would of insisted that it be removed. Anyway I'm just I just started the process trying oh yea trying to get this thing legal. The other thing I'd like to mention is that I participate in SPAT and I grow oysters off my dock and I do use that shed to store my oyster equipment yes because it was also noted in the waterfront revitalization report 47 February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting that there was no it was not required to be near the water because it had no functionality but I do use it for the oysters. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have beds right out there in the canal? MARY HOVEY: I just tie them off of my dock in cages. MEMBER HORNING : And you raise them up to what size? MARY HOVEY: I raise them for two (2) years. MEMBER HORNING: To legal or marketable size. MARY HOVEY : I believe so. I mean I follow the SPAT guidelines can't really address the legality of it. But of course I don't sell them commercially. MEMBER HORNING: Then what do you do with them? MARY HOVEY: Eat them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Has a party like a lot of us. Have an oyster party. MARY HOVEY: And give them to my neighbors. It's not legal to sell them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm trying to see where the AE Flood Zone line is. MARY HOVEY: You know that was an interesting remark CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mark is talking about you know the LWRP coordinator that it's partially in a flood zone. It looks like it wouldn't be too big a burden to move it out of that flood zone and leave it in sort of the back yard and fairly close to the canal but away from the flood zone. MARY HOVEY: It's interesting I saw the flood zone CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not on here so I don't know what he's talking about. MARY HOVEY : When we purchased the house we were considered in a flood zone and I was required to carry flood insurance which was costly and then ten (10) years ago or so they redid the map and I was no longer considered in a flood zone and so I still carry flood insurance but at a greatly reduced cost because and I still have flood insurance and it's still at a reasonable cost so the flood insurance company does not consider me in a flood zone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking at figure I can't even read it I mean this is a very old survey it's really hard to read. February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MARY HOVEY: I have a better copy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know if Mark's looked at the yeah sure MARY HOVEY: Are you looking at this one? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yea. MARY HOVEY : Yea that's my only copy yea this is a little bigger you can look at it but that's my only copy. Now that doesn't show the shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it doesn't. MARY HOVEY: Yes but I have an explanation for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay MARY HOVEY : That survey was done with the expressed purpose of getting a building permit for a dock a cat walk and a ramp and I have at that time there were four (4) empty lots CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to go back to the mic cause we're recording this and we gotta make sure we pick up your comments. MARY HOVEY : There were four (4) adjacent properties to the south of me they were empty and I believe that the previous owner moved that shed in order to create this survey so he can get his dock built and the previous owner I would also like to say never lived in the property. He bought it as an investment and he only rented it and when he put the dock in that was a capital improvement. I don't believe he would build a shed for capital improvement reasons so I do believe him and he told me personally that the shed was there when he bought it. I think he moved that shed next door had the survey done got his dock legal built it and then put the shed back where it was. That's why it doesn't show up on this survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it was never addressed by the Trustees? MEMBER HORNING : Then how feasible is it to move the structure to a more conforming site? MARY HOVEY : Well its feasible. I'd have to get some big equipment in there find someone to do it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea just come to the mic state your name please. NICHOLAS MORELLA : Nicholas Morella CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Say it again sir. ME February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting NICHOLAS MORELLA: Nicholas Morella. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. NICHOLAS MORELLA : It would be problematical to move to get the equipment into the area where the shed is. It would have to cross the cesspool and heavy equipment I don't have to elaborate so if it had to be removed it can be dismantled but to move it as a structure would require equipment that I believe would be dangerous to the septic system coming around from the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where's the septic system located it's in the front yard someplace. NICHOLAS MORELLA : It would be it's in the back it's on the north side well it's on the northeast side of the property. If you look at the MEMBER HORNING : Is it adjacent to the driveway or? NICHOLAS MORELLA: No it's on the other side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's on the other side. Well then I don't see how MEMBER HORNING : So that's not north. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it is north. That's the north side. NICHOLAS MORELLA: So you'd have to come this way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well why not this way? MEMBER HORNING: Why not down the driveway? NICHOLAS MORELLA: There's vegetation and trees and it would be difficult to get around. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Along the driveway an asphalt driveway? NICHOLAS MORELLA : Well the asphalt driveway ends and then it's grass and there's vegetation sort of extensive vegetation on that line and there's also some material that's stacked mulch so that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're referring to this are in there? NICHOLAS MORELLA : Yea it would be here. See there's the vegetation. This doesn't show it but right around there's a pile of mulch at the end of the driveway truck comes and so the equipment would have to come here and ,50 February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know the whole thing looks like it's not very it's pretty minimal you know the deck is small the gazebo is small thank you I don't know it seems to me that it would be possible to keep it and to keep it on that seaward side but simply to just move it closer to your house you know just lift it up and move it because that way again the Board is obligated under the Law to grant when justified at all the minimal variance necessary to implement your project to approve your project let's say and so this is like sitting on the bulkhead and if we can just get the thing moved back away from the bulkhead and keep it in the back yard I think it would improve the it would make our job a lot easier. It's very hard to grant something that's that close to a bulkhead. You know maybe the code needs to be revisited but that's not something we can do from this position. The Town Board does that. So right now it's showing four (4) feet from the property line and 12.5 feet to the bulkhead and can you tell us what you would find functionally reasonable in terms of moving it away from the side you know the side yard and closer to your house. How many feet in MARY HOVEY : It's required to be ten (10) feet from the property line? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. That you should be able to make conforming. Why is this oh I see because this is considered to be a rear yard property line. The bulkhead and the rear yard are one of the same. So when it's saying four (4) foot from a property line it's really almost four (4) feet from the bulkhead as well on one corner and then it skews away and they're saying that's that 12.5 feet. MARY HOVEY : Well the bulkhead is at an angle and so it was explained to me that the 75 feet from that is also at the same angle which puts it you know beyond my house probably in my neighbor's yard actually. Well I don't really care where it is I just want you to tell me exactly where to move it so that you'll approve it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then I think how about coming up here for a minute you folks want to have a quick look at this together? It's gonna have to be someplace in here I would imagine. You know MEMBER HORNING : Or even here where she says the mulch is. MEMBER DANTES : The thing is this is the only little section that's bulkheaded. The rest of this is nature so I mean if this wasn't here. MARY HOVEY : The bulkhead is about this big. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's really little. It was awfully hard in the snow to we go an inspect every site. But given the snow load I mean you can't imagine we were literally up to our February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting waists in the drifts I mean like you know unbelievably you should of seen your local public servants I mean honest to god. MEMBER DANTES : Leslie my sense is it looks like they're paying a little bit of a penalty because of a small bulkhead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This tiny bulkhead here. MARY HOVEY : I know. It's and it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How long is that bulkhead it doesn't look like it's more than maybe 12 feet 15 feet? No no it's about 15, 18 feet. If this is 12.5 MARY HOVEY : And it doesn't really function as a bulkhead anymore. MEMBER HORNING: What does it function as? MARY HOVEY : A thing sitting in there and causing a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can we put that in our decision there's this thing sitting there this problematic thing. Alright you know well I think that is a point that maybe we can distinguish this what we have to do with decisions is everything is site specific for one but everything we do sets a precedent for everybody else to come back at us but you let them do that so we have to be very mindful of being able to write a decision that distinguishes the uniqueness of this property from others that would allow this kind of decision to be made. MEMBER HORNING : We need to have a measurement for the length of the bulkhead and then MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We can scale the bulkhead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's really odd because I mean it isn't even running parallel to the water. MARY HOVEY : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's perpendicular and who maybe that was put in in relationship to this wood ramp or something. I have no idea. MARY HOVEY : I think it was there before it's very old. It was there they built that dock. Trying to (inaudible) by putting it in on that angle figuring they were going to protect it behind it I don't know. February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the deck there's three (3) elements here it's not shown on the survey. The wood deck well they're calling it a roofed over wood deck. It's literally like a little gazebo structure sitting on the you just use that to sit out in under. MARY HOVEY : Actually I store stuff under there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You store stuff. And the deck is almost at grade. I mean it's like a platform you know. It's not on grade cause it can't be but it's a platform really and the shed is just a small shed 6.8 by 12.7. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And they would require ten (10) foot setback from a property line. That should not be difficult. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're calling it a four (4) foot setback from the property line. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So that should not be hard to achieve. MEMBER HORNING : That's not hard to achieve but the thing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the point is if they're going to have to move it at all MEMBER HORNING : Move it some distance not move it a couple of feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Might as well move it to a place that's just more conforming MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Because of the bulkhead setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Otherwise we have to find justification for leaving it where it is you know what I'm saying. There's no point coming in and moving it two (2) feet. That's an expense that doesn't accomplish much. MEMBER HORNING : We can set an arbitrary distance 40 feet. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Let's look what's in the neighborhood. Let's see what's in the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a shed right next door. MARY HOVEY : My next door neighbor has a shed very close to the bay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who knows if it's legal I mean that's the other thing whether it has a C.O. MARY HOVEY : It's my understanding that the size of my shed is not even considered a structure that you are allowed to just put that size shed on your property. February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are but in a conforming location. You don't need a permit for it. MARY HOVEY: You don't need a permit you don't need a C.O. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 10 by 10 there abouts but yea the one next door is close but again we can't site as a precedent another illegal shed. This doesn't look good. So we don't know MARY HOVEY : And there's another illegal one over. But you know it's so convenient to locate them there because otherwise they're like in the middle of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know we're going to have to the Town really needs to look at that Code cause they're proliferated everywhere and we're stuck with implementing the stuff in the field and we need to bring to their attention that this is something they should be looking at. MARY HOVEY: Is it your opinion they should be allowed to be a little closer to the water? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not particularly because there are real environmental hazards. Sometimes people store chemicals all kinds of junk in there which can leach, you know that's not good for any of us. It just depends on who, what and where. They're often a hazard with lots of in jetsam when there's big heavy winds and storms. Now you mentioned that it's been there a long time without any adverse problem. The canal is not nearly as wild as a bay or a sound. So and we know the area quite well. I guess we just have to gravel with what to do here and see if we can justify specific site conditions to leave it otherwise we have to figure out where the best location what we will do is we won't require you to do go to the expense of a surveyor or anything. What you'll have to do it if we require that it be moved then you'll have to show it on a survey and then you'll get your permit. MARY HOVEY: After it's moved? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. So, what we should do as a Board is figure out there's no point in taking the time now to sit here and do this but we'll have to figure out if we can't justify it staying where it is then where is the most feasible place for you to locate it where there is a least land disturbance there's the least headache for you and it just makes it a lot more conforming and MARY HOVEY : Well if I may describe then of course I'm hoping that you would want me to leave it where it is because it's a lot less expensive (inaudible) and just so you know well you were there so there's a large triangular rough area in here so I can on this edge there's wild trees that have been there forever well they used to be forsythia but it was killed in the storm. What I'm trying to say is that there's a lot of vegetation that's on a wedge shape that goes out February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting here so I would like if I have to move it for it to be around in this area cause I can use that wild area as part as the ten (10) feet setback from the property line. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Are you talking about the front yard now? MARY HOVEY : Oh I'm sorry. MEMBER HORNING : That would be totally conforming perhaps. MARY HOVEY : I'm over here. This is where the vegetation is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's another thought. Vicki just actually thought of this put this up here for a second. Take the shed and you simply put that shed on the other side of this deck and gazebo that then you just sort of carry it around to this side. That is going to increase your bulkhead setback substantially MEMBER HORNING : Over to the other side of the porch? NICHOLAS MORELLA : Oh you mean like rotating it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea just put it on the other side. See this shed pick that up and if you move it over here there's your bulkhead setback and then this becomes this is still a four (4) foot rear yard setback but that's at the closest point. This would be much farther cause look if it's here this is on an angle this four (4) feet becomes something like eight (8) feet. MARY HOVEY : That's brilliant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that's pretty minimal. Credit her the design consultant. MARY HOVEY : Oh that's right I planted a 14 foot cedar tree there. I forgot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : W000ps maybe not so good. MARY HOVEY : Yea because somebody built over here put CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just take that and slide it there that's even better still. NICHOLAS MORELLA : That's even better it's even farther. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would work. The deck's a platform for crying out loud and if you know if it were the slats on the ground it wouldn't even be considered lot coverage or anything. Then we would only be talking about that gazebo structure. MEMBER HORNING : Do we set a distance or how is she going to handle this? RE February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think if we just basically describe it accurately or if yea I don't want you to have to go to the expense the survey I really I think it's just you know MEMBER HORNING : Moving it to the north the northern side of the or is it western side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the point is since there's a big cedar tree here if this gets placed here like that see here like that MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But then that deck might not be in a conforming location. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It won't be but it's going to be set back farther cause then it's going to be taken from this point right and then it will be taken from that point see this will be the bulkhead setback MARY HOVEY : And I can dismantle the deck and the gazebo anyway I probably will because they're hooked the roof of the gazebo is somehow built into the roof of the shed so I'm going to have to take that down. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It doesn't appear to be any type of construction going on. I personally think you can go to ten (10) feet and then we can review this bulkhead CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then you just get rid of one (1) variance all together. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : and if we review this bulkhead a little closer and maybe it doesn't really function as we as a bulkhead as we understand it. MEMBER HORNING: Where would you move it ten (10) feet? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : From the rear yard from the rear property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From here well if you are going to have to cut it cause they're all attached MEMBER HORNING: You can say a minimum of ten (10) and that would make CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We could say no structure shall be any closer than a conforming ten (10) foot rear yard setback and then we can MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Address the bulkhead with Mark Terry somehow maybe a better site inspection of the bulkhead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it yea when spring comes. I'm not going back there anymore unless it's ice fishing. February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting A.T.A. KIELY : Well the definition of a bulkhead is a structure or barrier at use for which is to separate and act as a barrier between (inaudible) material and water I don't think that's what CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a little tiny piece sticking out beyond a wood ramp. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It doesn't appear to be functioning as such. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not functioning. You know what why don't we just do this why don't we call it a non -bulkhead. A pain in the neck thing that's not a bulkhead and just indicate that the shed/gazebo and deck shall be moved to a conforming ten (10) foot property line location. And then what that means is when you get around to it you put it where you want to put it and then you'll have it on a survey and that's what we'll stamp and give to the building department and you'll get a C.O. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well there is a time limit on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea yea yea I mean we have to do this fairly well oh yea three (3) years MARY HOVEY : I have three (3) years? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Plus another 3 one year extensions by requests prior to expiration. MARY HOVEY : So ten (10) feet from each property line including the back CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea ten (10) feet from any property line MARY HOVEY : ten feet ten feet okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and then we will define we will say the variance with regard to the bulkhead is inaccurate. This is not defined per code as a bulkhead. The Building Department is going to determine that the high water mark that you got here is the property line. You see where it says not top of the bank but the high water line. So you gotta be ten (10) feet from that. MARY HOVEY : Okay NICHOLAS MORELLA : Where's the high water mark? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says right on the survey see where it says top of bank right underneath that. MARY HOVEY : Okay ten (10) feet from the high water line. February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yep. MEMBER HORNING : Instead of four (4). MARY HOVEY : Well that means I can have it even closer to the bank because that's four (4) feet that's a four (4) foot difference. Are you sure that you want it from the high water mark? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's how the Building Department see if MARY HOVEY : Cause that gives me four (4) feet closer to the bank you realize that right? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You're on the bank right now. A.T.A. KIELY : Don't argue against yourself. MARY HOVEY : No I know I just want to make sure a mistake isn't being made and I have to move it twice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you no you're not going to move it twice if you want you know what if you want to be absolutely safe make it ten (10) feet from the top of the bank and when we know it will be twelve (12) feet or whatever they want to use but you know let's just proceed that way. This will be alternative relief in other words you don't have to give it to us before it's done. We will tell you what we are allowing you to do and it will be called not as we're not going to grant it as applied for we're going to grant as alternative relief saying we're going to require it to be conforming from property line minimum okay minimum ten (10) feet from top of the bank and then we will make the variance for the bulkhead go away cause we're going to say this isn't a bulkhead. It doesn't function as the code describes it as a bulkhead. So then when you go to decide exactly where you want it and as long as you're following what that decision says you're going to need a survey to show where it is and that's what you take in with our decision to the Building Department and you'll have to give us a copy of the survey so we can stamp it clip it to the decision and then take it we send it over to Building so we're all talking the same NICHOALS MORELLA : Now we'll get a package in the mail stating what we've discussed here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will mail you the decision. The decision will be written MARY HOVEY: I mean you're going to write up a report. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to write up a decision the decision will be at the earliest two weeks from today in the evening. You don't need to be there it's not a hearing or anything we deliberate. We talk about the drafts and so on and then you know I have to sign them as soon as we vote on them and they become legal and we take it from there. With alternative In February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting relief you have to show us that the decision you made where you're putting it conforms to what we granted. Okay that's all. NICHOLAS MORELLA : We'll be sent a copy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea sure the decision. You can also call I think you pretty well this is pretty unusual for us to discuss a decision with an applicant prior to decision being made. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have a couple of questions to specifically about this. You're siting a this is page 2 an aerial imagery resources what is that is that an online MARY HOVEY : He's a company. He archives these things. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: This is not your parcel. The one that's outlined in red. MARY HOVEY : It isn't? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No. If you refer to your tax map. Are you familiar with what a tax map looks like? MARY HOVEY : Oh yea MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Then you see your you see where your property is NICHOLAS MORELLA : Oh no we're up here. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Correct. Furthermore NICHOLAS MORELLA : This is somebody else's property. MARY HOVEY : Oh yea dah CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does somebody else have a shed? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So would you agree that referencing that aerial is incorrect? MARY HOVEY : Yea. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay thank you. Furthermore if you look at that aerial you notice the black would you consider that that is the canal? MARY HOVEY : Yes MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And then would you say that that white dot that was in that's in that red parking is in the canal? 591 February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MARY HOVEY : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So clearly it wouldn't be a shed that would be in the canal? MARY HOVEY : No no and I didn't say that this (inaudible) MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No you said that the property card shows that it had existed in '76. MARY HOVEY : If it existed in '76 1 would not be here. No no can I just see it just a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Sure you can but we already determined that's irrelevant. MARY HOVEY : It's a dock image shows no shed anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second by anybody? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6826 — LEWIS TEPERMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next hearing before the Board is Lewis Teperman # 6826 Request for Variance from Article XXII Section 280-116 and the Building Inspector's September 29, 2014, renewed December 9, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to reconstruct a deck, at; 1) less than the code required bluff setback of 100 feet, located at: 1225 Aquaview Avenue (adj. to Long Island Sound) East Marion, NY. SUM # 1000-21-2-16. State your name for the record please Dave. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : Dave Chichanowitz Creative Environmental Design representing Dr. Teperman. I'm here also with the building contractor who did the submissions of the paperwork. I also have additional paperwork I'd like to submit. These are copies one is to start February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting with the actual C.O. of the residence which I don't think was filed originally so it shows the one family dwelling C of 0 the current date was 5/'04. Howard Terry was the Building Inspector back in the day when this thing was all done. The house and deck was built at the same time this is you know dating back to give you some history on the property. I also have I think there's three (3) properties on Aquaview that have been granted ZBA approvals for deck and structures closer to than the 100 foot normal setback as required. I also supplied you with a map that I drew up kind of giving you a little more detail as far as showing the coastal erosion line. The percentage of the deck and existing deck as far as what is being affected what's not and then also the actual distance from the top of the bluff to the edge of the deck the closest point just to maybe help make it a little easier for you to see the overall scenario. With that if we have any questions that we could maybe answer for you we'd be happy to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea just wanna kind of look at what was referred to in the LWRP report you got a copy right? DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's inconsistent in which is generally the case with seaward side structures that are not conforming. What part of this deck did you say you put in something that show where the CEHA was? Oh I see. Alright you're allowed to have a maximum of 200 square feet in the coastal erosion hazard area. This is 182 ok that's what we needed to know. You did your homework. MEMBER DANTES : So we're cross out that area of non -conforming now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what we'll have to do is quote from a section of the code that indicates that although the LWRP is correct up to 200 square feet is permitted now one thing want to ask about is that an at grade patio kind of thing or concrete slab or is that a raised deck that's also permitted. You know one's a structure and one is not. I just want to be sure that we're correct so that we address everything we need to address. Are you looking it up for us Stephen? Let's find out what's going on here. By the way I think we all get extra credit for wading out in snow up to our waists to try and inspect the site. Maybe we should have no public hearings except summer, spring and fall. Well Stephen is double checking to make sure that it isn't just at grade stuff. A.T.A. KIELY : It's slow. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : From my understanding of it it is a structure decking something that actually requires a building permit and grade structures according to the building department do not require building permits. This does require a building permit and then thus qualifies as sm February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting what is approved up to that 200 feet. That was my understanding anyway so I'm sure Stephen can find it though someday you'll find it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not a whole lot anyway to be honest. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ: No it's a very minor section. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So depending on how what the code permits the decking could be reconstructed but all within that you know on the landward side of the coastal erosion hazard line or if we can permit up to 200 square feet in it then we can do that in the decision if the code allows us to. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : The owner only wants to replace exactly what was there. It's been there since the day he bought it. He's not looking to make it any larger just exactly what it is and it's a safety hazard now because the wood is some 40 years old since it was originally built and there's some rot going underneath and surface boards so it's a safety issue at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see what else did Mark have to say. He's basically saying that the two adjacent parcels have seaward decks but the deck on the property they have no permits. The deck on the other side was a 1992 permit from the Trustees but doesn't comply with the permit conditions so whatever is going on up there on Aquaview the people are not necessarily doing what they're permits indicate they should. This is a the subject property as of December 21, 2005 Trustees wetland permit and a coastal erosion hazard permit # 6483 but it says that the permit doesn't include the subject deck structure. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : No it was never asked for. I actually did the application for the Trustees for that subject. It was to do with a new set of stairs going down to the beach. That was the long and short of what we were applying for. And at the time they never requested or asked for any other than what we submitted for. So what CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you show the deck on the survey? DAVID CHICHANOWITZ: No no I mean the bluff I mean there was site visits I mean the Trustees all had to go see the site so it was very no way of hiding the deck that was attached to the house but it was never brought ever up in the past. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah they may of not realized that it didn't have a permit or a C.O. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : Yea I know in just recent situations working with the Trustees they've been more adamant about making sure all of the amendments are fully up to speed where as before they used to just focus on the issue cause I've been now being going back and doing a February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting lot of administrative permits to bring everything up to speed so that everybody you know stamps and signs off on everything so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So who's got any questions or comments, George? MEMBER HORNING : I don't suppose you could the applicant couldn't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know what we'll just check check the code and see what it allows. I believe it does allow up to 200 square feet. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : I believe it does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that's the case then we'll write this as a de minimis. If it's not then we'll just say reconstruct in place and in kind seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area and have to lop off a little bit of the deck. Because we can't as you know grant anything that is inconsistent with the LWRP. We have to find ways to mitigate the inconsistency and then we can grant then we can say given these conditions or given the mitigations it is now consistent. We have to find it consistent. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : Then what about the other properties on the same street that were granted permission to build decks? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they have variances then they're legal and then they would characterize the neighborhood and we could use them. If they don't have C.O.'s or PreC.O.'s or didn't get variance relief even though they do visually characterize the neighborhood we can't use as a we can't site an illegal structure as characteristic of the neighborhood obviously. I mean there's so many gazebos all up and down bluffs and most of them are not legal so it's hard because it is a characteristic they're there but if they're not legal you can't really use it in a legal decision but you submitted some priors anyway didn't you. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : Yea I did. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Setbacks. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : Yep yep CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we'll certainly take a look at all of them. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I got a quick question. We have a letter from Peconic Surveyors that says east side of deck existing deck to top of the bluff is 24.8 and this (inaudible) you just gave us at 20 63 February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : That was off of my scale. I'm not a licensed surveyor. I'll go by the licensed engineer surveyor not mine. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So we'll go with 24.8 DAVID CHAICHANOWITZ : Yea MEMBER DANTES : Did the notice site a distance? MEMBER HORNING: 19 feet CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea 19 feet to the top of the bluff. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We got a letter from Peconic Surveyors saying it's 24.8. So we're going to go with the 24.8? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should think so. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ: That seems to be the most valid. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Peconic Metzger indicated that the existing deck is actually 24.8 to the top of the bluff even though the notice of disapproval says 19 feet. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ: Have you seen the coastal erosion line map that they go by? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No DAVID CHICHANOWITZ: I actually have a copy of it for you to see and if you want to take a look it's like to anybody's ideas of where this line is cause the scale is so small the line was quoted to me as being 10 feet wide so let me just show you what I found. It also might help make your decision a little easier. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's always helpful. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : If you see the line there that line has been collaborated out at a constant 10 feet thickness. That black line that runs along the coast CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This black line. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ: So is it 20 feet is it 30 feet you know is it 28 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I guess Mark uses the flood zone maps and he's got all kinds of GPS stuff and aerial stuff but 64 February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : But this is kind of at the discretion of the surveyors where they decide to put it is how that line becomes where it is so there it's not a science really it's a good guess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's pretty flat there. You want to hold on to this David? DAVID CHICHANOWITZ: Might as well have it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Thanks. MEMBER HORNING : Did you say the deck was built by a previous owner? DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : The deck that we're looking to replace was built at the time when the house was built. MEMBER HORNING: When the house was built? DAVID CHICHANOWITZ: That was back in (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we have lift off MEMBER HORNING : I was wondering at that time I mean was the bluff setback when was that put in as ordinance? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When well with zoning the Bulk schedule would have been established. MEMBER HORNING : No the bluff setback was that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What year you're saying was that bluff setback? MEMBER HORNING: Yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know the code I don't know. MEMBER HORNING : I mean I was wondering if the house if the deck was conforming at the time was my question. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : I assume it would be because everything was built right on top of the bluffs CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on we got A.T.A KIELY : We got some language I don't know if it's very helpful in this particular matter but it just says that docks, piers, wharves or structures built on floats columns open timber piles or IN February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting similar open work supports having a top surface area of 200 square feet or less or docks removed in the fall each year are excepted from this permit requirement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the deck is going to be on piers you got sono tube something I mean you know. A.T.A. KIELY : Structures built on floats, columns, open timber piles CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or piers. It say piers? A.T.A. KIELY : Yea well it says docks, piers, warves and structures built on CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's a structure so that could be a structure. A.T.A. KIELY: Yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so that should that's permitted. So that's what would have to be sited in the to make it consistent with LWRP. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So what I would look at that and I would think that you know perhaps they're limiting you to something 200 square feet or less for coastal erosion CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct MEMBER SCHNEIDER : cause everything a dock an pier and a wharf is all gonna be well within that. Maybe someday they would have to come before us for these little homes and decks that they have right on the bluff in which case we have to do an accumulative CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they have permits for all this stuff. That's not you know Trustees granted that thing saw it they blessed it what wasn't on anything was the deck. So, I would then say since then that already has relief you know on a permit that we only have to site the section of the code that makes it a deminimus permitted by code in the coastal erosion hazard area. MEMBER HORNING : But Leslie wouldn't the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then it can be consistent with LWRP. MEMBER HORNING : Wouldn't that include all of that wood decking and everything seaward of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No the setback includes all of that. MEMBER HORNING : No I mean that 200 square foot requirement. MM February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that that's only that 200 square foot maximum is the way we have to address that the setback is the setback no matter where it is. The way we have to address this part of the deck that's in the CEHA is by simply saying it's consistent with the LWRP by virtue of the code permitting a maximum of up to 200 square feet of construction and we can site that it's on piers it's a structure on piers. MEMBER HORNING : Well that's what I'm questioning because they already have a substantial amount of stuff probably equally or greater than 200 square feet not even including that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you talking about the decks and the steps and the MEMBER HORNING: Yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I'm saying they have permits for that including a coastal erosion permit from the Trustees. That is seaward of a naturally regulated feature and is not within our jurisdiction it's within the Trustees jurisdiction. MEMBER HORNING : And it doesn't count as square footage coastal erosion hazard CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't I think it's apples and oranges. They're different sections of the code. See one is 275 and one is 280 they're really different sections of the code. DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : Any other questions that you might have? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think so Eric, George Ken any additional questions? A.T.A. KIELY : Let me just interject. The definition of an unregulated activity is basically listed as accepted activities which are not regulated by the chapter included but are not limited to elevated walkways or stairways constructed solely for pedestrian use and built by individual property owner for limited purpose of providing non-commercial access to the beach, docks, piers, wharves or structures built on (inaudible). We talked about square footage less than 200 square feet and maintenance thereof so that's pretty broad. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay alright well we need to address what was addressed in the LWRP and that was what was addressed. If they had concerns about any other structures he would of mentioned it. They have their two permits. As far as I'm concerned it's a bluff setback and a on a preexisting non -conforming deck. Okay anything from anybody else? MEMBER DANTES : One thing I'll tell you and I hope I'm not opening a can of worms is there evidence I mean I don't see a C.O. for the storage shed on the beach but there's stuff in our file that show that it's eligible for a Pre C.O. so if your client is doing all this other work DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : There is a C of 0 on that storage shed on the beach. February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : There is? DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : Yes. I don't know why it didn't get submitted but I know there is one. Cause that was a big thing back when we were doing the staircase the Town came down on him. There was a made put a bathroom in the Town made him take the bathroom out make it back to a storage and then after everything everyone was happy they issued him a C of 0. So there is definitely a let me just look through my papers I might have it right here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a copy of that Dave? DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : I very well may let me look. It's not a C of 0. It's a letter of compliance but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is just saying it conforms to the application to the Trustees permit. Project for which this certificate is being issued is for storage shed with no amenities except for outdoor shower, two wood decks seaward of CEHA and (inaudible) DAVID CHICHANOWITZ : No I do not have it. I'm pretty sure there is one though. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can give this back to you Dave we don't really need it either. MEMBER DANTES : I'm just saying for your convenience grab it while you can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? Okay hearing no further comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) MN February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6818 BERRY & BERRY, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next hearing before the Board is Berry & Berry, LLC (Adj. from 1/22/15) Request for Variance from Article XI Section 280-49 and the Building Inspector's January 14, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to convert a dwelling to single contractor's business, at; 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 100 feet, located at: 41535 Main Road (aka State Route 25) Peconic, NY. SUM # 1000-75-5-13. So we have here a new Notice of Disapproval and new plans showing one business in the B Zone on the subject property. The office is the subject dwelling to be converted to a business use and therefore a different bulk schedule kicks in so the front yard setback is now required to be for a business use 100 feet where the pre-existing non -conforming dwelling is at 19.5 feet and it requires site plan approval from the Planning Board. This is for a single contractors business use in the B Zone. MS. MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of the Berry & Berry LLC. I wasn't trying to create problems. It was very simple this variance we were already here we were closing it out but I don't agree with their conclusion because we have the non -conforming section of the code that is if you're pre-existing non -conforming a permitted use with a pre-existing non -conforming structure which we have here we're not doing anything other than the occupancy of the structure. It should be it shouldn't need no variances because you don't trigger the new setbacks since in the code itself it says you can repair you know whatever and then use it obviously if you can repair it you can use it so it didn't make sense to me to throw this to throw us back here for a variance so I'd have you take a look at it it just doesn't make sense and you never know how it can be applied down the line it just doesn't make sense. But this is the simplest of all variances which is it's occupying an existing building and if anything the preservation of this building keeps the residential look I think we talked last time of the whole area where you have residences in the area but you are surrounded by somewhat industrial municipal uses. So it's I think it's pretty straightforward. I do want to give you Mr. Horning was asking why the variance on the two (2) uses if you recall which we now don't have in this situation but it all goes when I asked Mike Verity he says oh it's the Malon decision and I think you should take a look at the Malon decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know what the Malon decision is MS. MOORE : Yea Mike Verity the first time we were here the reason was because the Malon decision which was multiple well it was the shopping center in Cutchogue cause that was my application where they were claiming that each tenancy in the shopping center required 30,000 square feet and I came in and I said no that's you can't read a code that way and I gave them the applicable sections of the code and everything went fine until I saw the decision which February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting didn't impact Malon but it resulted on impacting all the next applications that come in where you have either one building with multiple tenants or multiple buildings with different tenants and that's what Malon Malon was one building we had the two buildings with different tenants and the Zoning Board at the time went on to give an interpretation that I think was a little wrong or I disagree with and you should take a look at it because it didn't apply to Malon and it doesn't apply to any of business zoned property. You have the choice of either doing one building or multiple buildings as the code specifically says that you can have you know 100 102 which in Malon talked about no building or premises be used as and then 103 in that same section talks about a project shall be divided into separate structures. You can't have you can't say in one you know in the first paragraph you can't have separate structures and then the second paragraph say well yea you should have separate structures and in fact you should create a complex of like Feather Hill style development. So, I think you should take a look at it because we did have the original application might give you an opportunity to look at Malon again and say no it didn't really that didn't make sense. MEMBER DANTES : What's the 100's? You said something like the code 100. MS. MOORE : Oh that's what it was called before it was numbered well it was 100-102 and 100- 103 chapter 100 which was the prior zoning code numbers done in MEMBER DANTES : It's an interpretation of a prior code? MS. MOORE : But it's the same language all we did was renumber. It's the same look at B Zoning the Bulk area parking that's applicable and what they did is they it was the renumbering is now for my Notice of Disapproval it'll have the proper number but that's that's why it came in the first time with the two buildings two buildings with possible more than one tenant occupancy. MEMBER HORNING : What was the case number for Malon and the date? MS. MOORE : I'm going to give it to you. It's I have I copied the whole thing. It's something as professionals here we always lament because we just it leaves us baffled on how should we design projects you know and you design it this way with two (2) buildings and we're told no you can't because now you got multiple tenants but if you design a shopping center they say oh no you can't do that because you've got multiple tenants or you exceed the 60 foot rule which is why Malon ended up on two reasons. One was the 60 foot rule because it was a 40 foot with a mezzanine connection a beautiful building. It's up now but that needed variances. Bringing you into the old Board I don't think any of you were on the Board at the time Malon was decided. Gerry is Gerry here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry was on the Board. IN February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MS. MOORE : He's the only long timer right so. It's very straight forward CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we have plenty of information in the record already. I'm very familiar with it from a Planning perspective had countless discussions with Planning Board in terms of parking but in any case what's really before us is a very straight forward front yard setback on pre-existing non -conforming residence to be converted. Building Department applied a different bulk schedule because of the change of use and it's there and it's been renovated in place and kind and that's It. MS. MOORE : Yea it's as straightforward as it gets. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It couldn't be easier. We could read Malon and take it to bed for night time reading but the bottom line is MS. MOORE : Although and I don't want to complicate things but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but you can't help yourself MS. MOORE : But I can't help myself. Well because I'm always thinking well you know how do I apply it because you always have a client coming to you and saying well you know does this apply does this not apply. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you gotta have an application that's like Malon and bring it to us for interpretation. MS. MOORE : No no in this case it's this one because you have the pre-existing non -conforming building with a conforming use and that's what we have here we have conforming business CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's different than Malon MS. MOORE : No no I'm giving you food for thought I'm saying that this application didn't need to be here either. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's not our call that's the Building Department's call so MS. MOORE : Oh you guys you have a chance to correct them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you ask us to overturn the Building Department that would be one thing but you're not. You're just here for a front yard setback which is not going to be a very difficult thing to write so let's not make it difficult. MS. MOORE : Alright I won't make it difficult for you. February 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? Okay hearing no further comments or questions I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) no February 5, 2015 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 Hearings. Signature &4�-t Elizabeth Sakarellos February 13, 2015 a]