Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/19/2015 HearingMarch 19, 2015 Regular Meeting TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall Southold, New York March 19, 2015 4:30 P.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES — Member GEORGE HORNING — Member via Phone & SKYPE KENNETH SCHNEIDER — Member GERARD GOEHRINGER — Member VICKI TOTH — Board Assistant (arrived at 5:20 P.M.) ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS — Clerk Typist STEPHEN KIELY — Assistant Town Attorney (left at 5:05 P.M. returned 5:50 P.M.) 0 March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page SOUNDSIDE LANDSCAPING, INC. # 6822 (Adj. from 1/8/15) 3 - 5 GERALD STAGG # 6835 3 5 - 8 THEODORE C. MARTZ, JR. # 6844 8-22 NAKO and SOSE RIZO # 6836 22-25 CUTCHOGUE 6213, 6291, 6204 LLC. # 6837 25-33 ROBERT and BETH ELLIOTT # 6834 33-38 MARK KING # 6841 38-43 MARK KING # 6842 38-43 MARY ROMAN and ELLEN BIRENBAUM # 6838 43-55 19 March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6822 — SOUNDSIDE LANDSCAPING, INC. (Adj. from 1/8/15) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to open the first hearing Soundside Landscape. There is no need for me to read the Legal Notice because it was an adjournment from a previous month and just for the transcript and for everybody's reminding this was to we were waiting for comments from Planning Board where there was a concurrent jurisdiction about a potential cross easement on the property and that there was already you were already before the Planning Board. What it is is the application is to construct a commercial building for landscape contractor's yard in an L.I. Zone, front yard setback of 59 feet where the code requires 100 and a rear yard setback of 21 feet where the code requires 70 feet. At this point we did receive comments, the Planning Board has indicated that there is no need for that easement at this time and that they support the variances but there was one question that I'm sure consul's here Pat Moore is here and she will address that which has to do with lot creation so this apparently was created in 1988 as a three (3) lot subdivision and the lot was at that time 45, 365 sq. ft. and currently the subject lot is 40,659 sq. ft. Planning Board has asked us to investigate how this happened and whether the lot is actually recognized pursuant to 280-9. So that's that so I'd like to hear from Pat about a response to that. PAT MOORE : Yes thank you Pat Moore hi George. I've been asked to help Gerard answer some of the legal questions. Just for you're the easement the cross easement has been resolved. There was another easement that appeared but it was for a water line and we actually found the document in the County records. The document on its own by its own terms and I put a little sticky by it if there's public water and it connects to public water and at this point public water is in the street that easement is no longer necessary so it that easement is resolved. With respect to the dimensional change to the property in let's see it's 2007 the State came by and did took initiated an appropriation of a small portion of the road frontage and I have both from PJ Corazzini cause he was the owner at the time the documents that the County had provided them and I also have from John Metzger Peconic Surveyors a map that he had which shows the taking area and in fact it matches precisely that was the change in the dimensions was a result of the State so the map otherwise would be the same. (Hands out paperwork to the Board) Here's one of the easement here's the one of the State's taking or appropriation it didn't have to be a condemnation because it was negotiated so they called it an appropriation and then I have individual surveys from John Metzger with the new dimensions so it's a terrible map but I tried to identify March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But that answers the question about the 5,000 sq. ft.? PAT MOORE : Correct. That is the difference. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're looking at a map that shows the area that the State appropriated on a survey MEMBER HORNING : This is a submission that Pat Moore gave? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct. So there is a legal accounting for what happened between the original 45,000 plus and the 40,000 as it exists today which satisfies Planning Boards query and that in fact we are granting variances to a legally recognized lot. MEMBER HORNING : Okay, okay so we covered territory that way and we don't have any issues? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. At this point let's just stop for a second and see if we can get connected to him (Member George) and we're going to call you. We're connecting to you and we're watching a little version of ourselves. Don't you love this technology? Hang up the phone. Well it's okay it's going to work. It's better than coming over with two ferries. Meanwhile while this is happening is there any Board member here up on the dais that has any questions about this application? I mean don't forget we did take a lot of testimony we're very familiar with it so we don't need to ask any more fine if you have anything else this is the time to ask. MEMBER HORNING : I'll ask one question to Pat. Were there any alternative locations or design considered that would possible location or designs that would eliminate the need for a variance or lessen the variances somehow? PAT MOORE : George no we did the owner and I talked about it and if you recall there was approval Corazzini had previously gotten site plan approval would have been wonderful if he could of just taken what had been approved in the past and started building but it did not work given the use of the property as a landscape yard because he needs the building over to the side in order to create an open area for the truck for his equipment and trucks and the material storage that occurs on any landscaper yard. So, the property is you know only an acre so it needed to leave enough room for the equipment so yes they had considered but unfortunately the alternative there really wasn't no other alternative given the use of the property. MEMBER HORNING : Okay what happened to the design from Corazzini, he didn't ended up building anything? PAT MOORE : Correct. He didn't he chose not to proceed with his plan. Ended up selling the property and I don't know where he is, where is Corazzini now did he relocate? No. IN March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING: Thank you Pat. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Okay, hearing no further comments or questions I make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6835 — GERALD STAGG CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Next application before the Board is for Gerald Stagg # 6835. This is a request for Variance from Article III Code Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's November 6, 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, located at: 7500 Nassau Point Road (Goldfish Pond Road, not open) Cutchogue, NY. SCTM#1000-118-3-3.1 Is there someone here to represent? VICTORIA DOW : Good afternoon my name is Victoria Dow. I'm from the law offices of Harvey Arnoff 206 Roanoke Ave Riverhead, NY 11901 for Gerald Stagg. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this pool is technically in a front yard even though it is in what we would call the architectural rear yard of the property as a result of an unopened right of way called Goldfish Pond. Is that correct? VICTORIA DOW: That's correct. March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All of us have inspected the site and the surrounding properties. Is there anything specific that you would like to tell us? VICTORIA DOW: Well I do have the affidavits of posting and mailing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay great would you bring that to us please? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I make a statement. Would you kindly tell your client that it was by far the best driveway cleaning I've ever seen of all of the ones we've been looking at. There was no need for a four wheel drive vehicle although I brought one. It was just absolutely terrific. VICTORIA DOW: I will let him know. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I should make a point of noting that we many of us took our lives in our hands trying to make site inspections last month on ice skating rinks but we did our best. VICTORIA DOW: I was at the property today and it's much better. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Until tomorrow. VICTORIA DOW : I just wanted to state that it does appear on looking at it that it's a rear yard. And it wouldn't be a substantial change from the community. There's really no other place to put it on the property the in -ground pool. It's behind the house. It doesn't appear to have any adverse effects on the neighborhood. There are other pools in the area in that same location from the street and the paper road had pre-existed the property. It wasn't a self-created problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This one seems pretty straight forward. Is there any questions anyone has? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No. MEMBER HORNING : I have one question. Well a couple of questions. The proposed patio is that at grade Is that correct? VICTORIA DOW: Yes. MEMBER HORNING : A de -watering system for emptying the pool in the event that you need to empty the pool. March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting VICTORIA DOW : Is there a de -watering system in the proposal is that what you're asking? MEMBER DANTES : That's what he's asking, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's look at the pool specifications and see if there's a dry well on the survey or dry well required with MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I don't see one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Some pools no longer really require de -watering depends on the kind of pool that you put in. We do have specifications on the pool but I'm not seeing anything about other than just the structural frame of the pool. MEMBER HORNING : That could be one of our conditions Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it could. Well here's what we can do we can simply since the specifications rather than hold up what is a very straight forward application why don't we do this we don't know where the pump equipment is going to be either on this MEMBER GEOHRINGER : Yes it's right next to the back of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it located on the survey? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright okay so typically what we would do is ask that the pump equipment be located in sound deadening structures to avoid intrusive noise on both the property owner and the adjacent property and if required we would insist that a drywell for pool de watering be placed on the property so that all drainage is on site and doesn't flow as ground water so we can condition it based upon if required by pool specifications and then you can deal with that with the Building Department. VICTORIA DOW: Terrific thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that okay with you George? MEMBER HORNING : Yea that's okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok fine. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further comments or questions I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6844 — THEODORE C. MARTZ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for a request for Variances under Code Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's December 1, 2014, Amended January 28, 2015 Notice of Disapproval for a building permit for a subdivision and additions and alterations to create a single family dwelling, at: Proposed Lot 1-1) less than the code required minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. 2) less than the code required minimum lot depth of 175 feet, Proposed Lot 2 —1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet, location at : 555 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue, NY. SUM # 1000-104-12-6.1. Is there someone here to represent this? KEVIN MCGOWIN : Good afternoon Kevin McGowin of Essex, Heffer and Angel for the applicant Ted Martz. I have an affidavit of posting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Terrific just what we were looking for. Okay let me just quickly enter what these variances are and then we'd love to hear what you have to say about it. This is for a subdivision of an improved 71,038 sq. ft. lot and additions and alterations to an existing non- conforming cottage to create a single family dwelling by adding a proposed 250 sq. ft. addition to bring it up to the code required minimum for dwelling size. It is currently 744 sq. ft. That will require a lot 2 will have a front yard setback as proposed with additions and alterations at 35.6 ft. where the code would require a 50 ft. front yard setback. Parcel 1 would be 30,940 sq. ft. code requires a minimum of 40,000. Lot 2 would be conforming and the Planning Board subdivision approval is also required. I think that covers the legal issues involved and we have some correspondence from neighbors. Do you know if you have copies of all of them? March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting KEVIN MCGOWIN : I have copies of two letters submitted by the neighbors one from the neighbor to the west and one from the neighbor to the east. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just go another one. We have one dated March 3rd. We have one dated March 4th did we get another one. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There's two dated March 4th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two dated March 4th yep, two different ones. The pictures were added. It's the same letter just pictures were added. I think that's it on the letters. We will just you know reviewing a little history remember that we had seen this application previously and the subdivision for insufficient lot size was granted by this Board with lots that were paralleling with street frontage paralleling the street and that would have required the demolition of both structures. So now you're back cause you're proposing a front to back lot line change. KEVIN MCGOWIN : Correct. I know the Board is familiar with this case and there's somewhat a convoluted history to it and which we went over pretty in depth in the narrative analysis we submitted but I'll just give you I think the relief we're actually requesting is pretty straight forward. I'll just briefly go over the history of the application. The subject lot total is 1.63 acres. It's located on the south side of Broadwaters Rd. occupied by a single family dwelling and a cottage both that predate the zoning code. In 1978 this Board issued the original variance for the property which granted the exact same relief we're currently requesting and granted two lots back to back. In the interim between 1978 and 2010 the lots were merged and as a result in 2010 the applicant came in to demerge them and requested the side by side configuration with the main house straddling the lot line. That layout required variances for lot area and lot width for both parcels and while the Board granted the variance there was a single condition on the variance requiring that both structures be demolished. Again the two homes on the property are legal preexisting dwellings constructed in their current location prior to 1957 and because the applicant would like to avoid the need to demolish these two homes the current application is looking to revert back to the lot configuration that was approved under the 1978 variance which would make these two roughly square shaped parcels that are situated back to back each occupied by one of the existing structures. And so all of the issues associated with the actual subdivision of two lots were dealt with back in 2010 right now we're just looking to essentially reconfigure the lots into what we believe in a planning perspective is beneficial to all parties involved as compare to the side by side configuration. So as part of this proposal both lots will be brought into compliance with the required lot width and the rear lot will be brought into compliance with the lot size the minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. so that will be a complying lot. The front yard will be short of the 175 foot depth requirement and it will have a lot area of 30,940 sq. ft. so it will still have the non -complying lot size. So in essence we are taking one of the non- March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting conforming lots and making it a conforming lot. And as you mentioned a front yard setback will be required solely because in order to keep the cottage where it is there's only 86 feet between the cottage and the main house so wherever you put that line you're going to be short 50 feet whether it be the rear yard of the main house or the front yard for the cottage in the back. So where the division line is proposed the cottage is only a maximum of 36.5 feet from that line that's requiring a front yard setback but it's really just to maintain the cottage in its existing position. And along with the application we're proposing a number of mitigation measures as you can see on the surveys that were submitted we're proposing a 30 foot wide natural vegetated buffer area along the southern boundary of the rear lot. A 20 foot wide natural vegetated buffer along the rear 200 feet of the eastern boundary of the rear lot and in response to one of the letters we received from the neighbor to the west who requested that the applicant amend the application to provide extend the buffer down to the western lot line. We have no problem with that and we're happy to provide a 20 foot buffer down the entire length of the western lot line to provide a buffer on that side as well. We've also the applicant has also upgraded the outdated septic systems on the property which have been approved by the Health Department two independent systems. There will be a common driveway on the property so this will prevent the need from creating an entirely new curb cut on Broadwaters. Both properties will continue to access the existing driveway area whereas if we went to the side by side configuration we would have to have a new driveway for the second lot and really as part of mitigation we'll be bringing the cottage into compliance with the minimum floor area requirement. It's really not part of our variance application. We're not requesting relief we're actually curing a non -conforming issue by all we're seeking to do is maintain the cottage but in order to do that without requesting a variance we're just looking to add roughly 250 sq. ft. just to get it over that minimum threshold. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the only variance you need for that is the front yard setback because it's what it is. KEVIN MCGOWIN : Right but I would say the addition won't be proposed anywhere within the setback area so the front yard variance is really just because of the creation of the new lot and the current location where the cottage is existing wherever we put the addition it'll be towards the rear of that cottage so it's not within the setback area. So the benefits of the proposed configuration as we see them is an addition to avoiding the need to demolish these two perfectly good homes as compared to the side by side configuration this proposal brings a rear lot into conformance of the R-40 requirements. It provides, these natural buffers eliminates the curb cut access need for the second lot. As I said we believe from a planning perspective for the Town in that it creates gets rid of one of these non -conforming lots and creates the rear lot as a conforming lot as lot size as to lot width gets rid of both of those and only has the one entrance. Even for the neighbors as compared to the side by side setbacks they'll be getting BE March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting better the way the homes will be situated on the lot will be further from the side lot lines in this proposal because of much more room to maneuver if in the event that the cottage is relocated they'll have much more room to maneuver on the lot and where the cottage is now is 47 feet from the western lot line. It's as compared to the side by side layout where there was hardly any room once you put the side setbacks in to situate the house it would of essentially been the minimum from the side lot line it's about 15 maybe 20 feet whereas now the cottage is located 47 feet and there's no reason to ever go closer than that. So essentially we can't think of a reason why this proposal is not an improvement over the configuration that was approved by this Board in 2010. 1 can go through the statutory balancing test really briefly I know we addressed all these matters in the narrative we submitted but as the Board knows you're required to balance the five factors under Town Law 267B with the benefit to be achieved by the applicant. The first factor is that there is no adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood. As we said the rear yard conforms with the R40 lot area. The neighborhood analysis we submitted shows that event he smaller front yard is going to be in the 61St percentile in terms of lot size so it will be larger than 82 of the 135 lots in the study area we submitted and the setback variances is only necessary because of the location of the existing houses it's just in order to maintain the status quo. The second criteria is there is no available alternatives to achieve this benefit. The benefit again is to retain the existing two independent homes on the lots. There's no available alternative to achieve this goal is (inaudible) sole condition on the prior approval so this is the only way to achieve that essentially. The variances are not substantial. We're not asking to subdivide the lot we're merely looking to reconfigure the demerge that was permitted in 2010. We're not creating substandard lots we're rearranging this lot line and as I said creating one lot that will actually be in conformance. So the proposal actually serves to alleviate several non -conformances that would currently exists under the side by side proposal. With regard to the impact on physical and environmental conditions again we're looking to the purpose of this application is to retain the homes so in that sense there is no physical change to the lot aside from the small addition that we're doing solely to bring the cottage into conformance with the minimum floor area requirement as opposed to under the prior proposal we had two homes being demolished and two new homes going up it was much more physical and environmental change to the site. And finally whether or not there's a self-created hardship you could argue that the hardship here is self-created the reality is that the hardship is created by the location of the existing homes on the lot and they were constructed as I said before the adoption of the zoning code. I can answer any questions that the Board may have but that's the essence of the proposal. MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at your packet here and I see the Town of Southold Wastewater Permit for the two septic tanks. Do you have a copy of the County one in here as well? KEVIN MCGOWIN : That's exhibit B Southold Wastewater Disposal Permit. go March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Yea that's the one C but it's the County Permit that generally controls. KEVIN MCGOWIN : I believe if you that's not in the packet but if you look at the plans themselves the stamp on the survey shows Suffolk County Department of Health Services and it shows December 12, 2013 approval. MEMBER DANTES : Alright thank you. The photocopy I have is not very well. KEVIN MCGOWIN : Yes I'm sorry it didn't come out quite as clear as it should have. MEMBER DANTES : That's all I wanted to know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else right now otherwise I'm sure there are some people in the audience who would like to make some comments and then perhaps you would like to respond and then maybe the Board will have more questions after we hear from the neighbors. KEVIN MCGOWIN: Sure. CRAIG CANTELMO : My name is Craig Cantelmo and I think you received one of my letters. So when it was first arranged and scheduled I wasn't going to be able to be here so I've added a few things to the letter that you received. I'm here with my wonderful wife Annie and we're full time residents there adjacent to 555 Broadwaters Rd. That's part right next to the Martz development plan the property and I'd like to thank you guys for disapproving the proposed lot change. When you look at that lot change we go back to 1978 but that lot change was never acted on and it says it on that even though they had made that lot line change it was never acted on at the time and if it was granted and you moved that to the east west it would create a flag lot which I believe is the only one on Nassau Point so where it says that it's the best thing to do for everyone involved it's really once that's done it allows him to sell off that property and of a house put basically in the back yards of a number 3 neighbors there so I realized that when he bought the property he bought it when it was merged. You know we invested in Southold Town and we live here and work in the community and when we invested in it we knew that that lot next to us we investigated that cause it was a lot of money for us and those two lots were merged and we knew in that that our investment was going to be safe because you couldn't unmerge them so back in 2010 we moved in in 2001 back in 2010 we went through this again so nothing has changed since that decision you guys made in 2010 and we're standing back here and the agreement was if they move those two lots then they demerge them that both houses would have to be removed and we still feel that that's the best way to go on this proposal to make sure that those lots lines go where they're parallel to the street so it doesn't change the character of the neighborhood and I think that's all I have so thank you very much for listening. March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much for your comments. Anyone else? Please come forward. XAVIER FLEMING : Good evening madam chairperson members of the Board my name is Xavier Fleming. I own 375 Wunneweta Rd. which is lot 202 on the tax map that borders the applicant's property on the south side. Before I begin with my comments I'd just like to as the Board one question the decision from 2010 we all know it hasn't been acted on to date is that still valid today? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be if in fact the applicant went to the Planning Board to obtain subdivision approval. We grant variance relief for insufficient lot size but in order to actually codify that variance relief the applicant in either case what they're proposing now or what was granted before the next step has got to be to have the Planning Board act. But it's still in tact. XAVIER FLEMING: Ok. Are the lots merged today or are they unmerged? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I presume by virtue of our prior variance they are unmerged by virtue of that decision but they are not completed because they haven't gotten site plan approval from not site plan subdivision approval. MEMBER DANTES : You can't get a Building Permit until he finishes the Planning Board approval so he's halfway there. XAVIER FLEMING : Ok so this is information I needed to continue. Town Code section 267 B 3131 says undesirable change would not be you know created would I'm sorry. An undesirable change a variance could grant you to go back to the original lot lines. This applicant is asking to go back. The original lot lines as per the subdivision which would be perpendicular (inaudible) and that's not the case with this one. This new application is unique as Mr. Cantelmo said and it would allow the cottage or a future structure to be built on a conforming lot frankly my belief is that the cottage will never be altered. It will be knocked down once they are a conforming lot they can put up whatever they want without your consent. 267 B3 B3 in your facts and findings you said the variance is not substantial and in your old decision you sited that it was granted because the creation of the two new lots would be 9 and 14% less than conforming respectively. This application is for the creation of one conforming lot of 40,000 sq. ft. and the second, the front lot would be non -conforming to the extent of approximately 23% which is substantial in my mind if you're going to accept your verbiage of non -substantial in the previous hearing of 9 and 14%. The other question is if the driveway of the rear lot is served by property on the front lot it would either be by easement or deed and if in fact it is deed it would reduce the size of the front yard to the percentage of the deed arrangement that's made so if their EN March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting road were 10 feet by 50 feet and it was in joint ownership it would not be part of that lot but if it were done by easement perhaps it would be viewed differently but the front lot is 73% of conforming. Section 267 B3 B4 no evidence this from your facts and finding last time, no evidence has been submitted to the variance that it would impact the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The Planning Board went into great detail in their letter I can read it to you if you'd like? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We all have copies. XAVIER FLEMING : Okay so they the nuts and bolts of it was A) It's against the master plan of the town that's why the lot merger law was created. It recognized it's an over developed peninsula and they wanted to reduce the increased development and that was part of the reasoning for doing it. In addition the septic system flow into the waterways etc. you're position at the time was that it's two houses it doesn't matter whether it's two houses the way they are now or two new houses I propose to you that it doesn't make a difference because the current house the cottage is a cozy couple at best and the creation of a rear 40,000 sq. ft. conforming lot you could put up anything you wanted there and certainly it would create more septic waste than the cottage does now. In 280-11 which is the waiver of merger section it says if a lot has merged pursuant to 280-10 the Zoning Board may waive and recognize the original lot lines and findings with the following condition, A) the lot proposed is not been transferred to an unrelated person or entity since the time of the merger. We all know that's not the case and then this the findings there's a balancing act but the way I'm reading this is Section A is a prerequisite of the Sections B1, 2 and 3 which is the balancing act for the waiver of the merger and I don't think Mr. Martz has proven five years ago or today that any of these conditions have been met. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me just interrupt briefly to explain we did not grant a waiver of merger. He didn't qualify for a waiver of merger. XAVIER FLEMING : Okay that's what I'm saying now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He did not that's why a proposal was put before the Zoning Board to do a subdivision a lot line change. XAVIER FLEMING : Okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay which is a different kind of application which we also see. XAVIER FLEMING : Okay I'm not the lawyer. HE March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I just want you to be clear that you're on the right track that they were merged but because he couldn't qualify for a demerger because it was not held within the same family he purchased it while it was already merged XAVIER FLEMING : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Mr. Martz came to this Board through the Building Department to try and divide the property into two lots one of which was originally was conforming and one non -conforming and it wound up with two non -conforming lots. XAVIER FLEMING : Okay thank you. In any event I think that the decision of this Board from 2010 is more favorable than the one that's in front of us now. It would reestablish the original lot lines. It would require that the less substantial with less deficient less deficiency would exist in the lots the 9 and the 14 versus the 23 and the conforming. It would limit the location of where the house would be in the back because of the rear yard setback and that's my primary concern and it would be more in conformance with the neighborhood having a street frontage as opposed to an easement or a passage way up the driveway. In my mind the stated 5 years ago the hardship was self-created, Mr. Martz knew what he was getting into when he bought this property and it's just a question of is it a hardship or is it a payoff of a gamble on trying to subdivide this property and enable him to develop it the way he wants to. Obviously he didn't like your decision much from 5 years ago or he wouldn't be back here now. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you we appreciate your comments. Anyone else who wishes to address the Board? TOM CORNWELL : I'm Tom Cornwell with the Nassau Point Property Owner's Association. Our objection is going to when there's a variance that does not meet lot size we are always going to object to that to preserve the well-being of the Point and that's the objection we have as property owner association. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you very much. Anyone else? Would you like to make some comments to respond. KEVING MCGOWIN : Sure I'll just respond to a few things. In general a lot of the comments I think were focused on the general idea of dividing this property and being opposed to that and just to reiterate that was what was decided upon in 2010. The decision here is not between one lot and back to back lots it's between the side to side scenario and the back to back scenario and the back to back scenario is preferable to the applicant because of the it won't be required to demolish the homes and as we laid out I believe in a lot of ways it is a benefit as compared to the side by side layout for the neighbors as well because under the prior scenario we weren't March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting able to provide buffers along the side lot lines because there wasn't enough setback area to do so and in this we have on the survey these buffer areas shown. With regard to the rear setback the home the rear lot will have to comply with the rear setback, we're not asking for any relief there. So the two side by side homes could be pushed back just as far as whatever whether it be the cottage remains there or in future a different home is built there and is put further back or put more towards the center the two brand new homes on the side by side lots could be put just as far back because the only thing the only restriction there is the rear yard setback and physical (inaudible) with that. With regard to I would like to address just the Planning Boards comments they just submitted the same memo that was submitted in regards to the 2010 application and the letter that they provided with it actually just said it basically was a blanket recommendation that says the Planning Board does not support the creation of non- conforming lots in the R-40 zoning district. It's the same rationality I gave before but I would just say the one main difference between the prior application and this application is that as compared to the side by side scenario this is creating one conforming lot. There will still be one non -conforming lot but there previously was two or currently there is two and we are proposing to get rid of one of them and so in that sense we are not creating non -conforming lots we're actually alleviating one of the two non -conforming lots and that goes to the comment from the gentlemen representing the Nassau Point Homeowner's Association that the way it's currently situated there are two non -conforming lots and the way it is proposed there is only one non -conforming lot so in that sense we're not adding non -conforming lots in the Nassau Point area we are reducing or alleviating that condition. I just want to I think it's easier to visualize the layout of the neighborhood I'm just going to submit some aerial they're not photographs but it's off of the Suffolk Counties GIS website. It just shows the layout of the neighborhood. The subject home this is off the Suffolk County Geographic information system. It just shows the neighborhood the proposed the subject property is highlighted and it shows where the buildings are laid out on the property and I just think it's easier to visualize the impacts as compared to a back to back layout versus a side to side layout when you have something to look at and you can see the home to the west the cottage and the main house aren't the home to the west I'm sorry is to the left if you're looking at the property 665 Broadwaters Rd. by creating the 20 foot buffer and creating the back to back lots we're able to locate both the main house and the cottage in their existing conditions and if anything is ever relocated there is a much larger envelope to move them away from the side lot lines whereas the parallel side to side layout there it needed a lot width variance because they are very narrow lots and there wasn't really much room to maneuver the homes so by their very nature they were much much closer to that side lot line and that goes for the property to the east as well. We're able to provide significantly more setback off of that and in fact as a condition to this application we'd be willing to provide double the setbacks on along both side yards as compared to what's required in the R40 district because there is that much space to provide as March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting compared to the parallel layout so it will significantly increase what's the buffer that's provided to those two property owners under current zoning let alone under the current layout with the side by side lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anything from the Board at this point. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else from the audience? LINDA REHM : Good evening my name is Linda Rehm and I'm the western side neighbor lot 188. I'm just a little confused could you just define the difference between a setback and a buffer? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A setback is where the distance from a property line to a structure a house let's say or a cottage. LINDA REHM : And this buffer that they are proposing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A buffer is an area of non -disturbance that will not be cut it will not be built upon it will remain as just what the word says a buffer between one property line and another property line. LINDA REHM : And that will be passed from one owner to the next? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That can be required with covenants and restrictions to remain in perpetuity. LINDA REHM : I did put two photographs with my letter and I just wanted you to notice that our house is only 10 foot off the property line and our house was built back in 1951 before we had rules and things like that but then the property line is at the bottom of the hill and the hill goes up to Mr. Martz's property so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you this one? LINDA REHM : Yes and so that was my biggest concern if this should happen that we maintain the integrity of that elevation between the two houses. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other thing that everyone ought to understand is that this Board always requires what the Town Code requires which is that anything that we grant relief from will require compliance with Chapter 236 of the Town's drainage code. All drainage must remain on site. They must conform to all of the requirements of that Chapter of the Code and that's our almost standard within any decision we make. do March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting LINDA REHM : That would be with whichever way these lot lines. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whichever way they go I'm sure that it's a condition you know the Building Department requires it I mean so any building permit at all they're going to require it and we put it in our decisions all the time. LINDA REHM : I just think that because Mr. Martz is an investor and he's built houses other lots in Nassau Point that I would like that buffer to be part of the on-going requirement because I'm sure he'll be selling these lots as soon as he could do that. Thank you. MEMBER DANTES : 1 just have a question if it's a non -disturbance buffer and let's say that there is a tree that's getting old and it's on this ladies property how the technical CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's different than the Trustees permit where you can't touch anything if a dead tree falls it stays there forever. A non -disturbance buffer is something that needs maintenance you know these are already developed properties. It's not like these are deeply wooded lots you know with a lot of scruff they're all developed anyway so what it means is nothing can go on it and probably plantings you know can go on there to create visual screening. Depends on natural buffer means it's there and you're not cutting it down. A landscape buffer means we're putting in X amount of feet of evergreens or whatever to create privacy screening. That's how the code distinguishes between the two. Did you want to make a comment? CRAIG CANTELMO : Craig Cantelmo again. When we look at this photo we say that there's a buffer on the side right but for us that's here they have a driveway that's going to come all the way down to access this area so we truly don't have that buffer. That buffer would start way in the back of the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this your property are you that house? CRAIG CANTELMO : We're 255 Broadwaters so it's not pictured here but what he did and by the way it's all old growth so if you've been to the property CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have. CRAIG CANTELMO : You would see and you know what's really cool you have all these pictures here about trees (pointing to the front of the dais) how good they are and all these things that the kids put up and that's part of our community and why we live here with some open space. I mean when you walk down take a look at it it's pretty cool but when you see this buffer that he's talking about he's already knocked down all the trees next to my house to put up this driveway as this facade because let's not kid ourselves as soon as he gets this division these March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting properties are being sold. He's been trying to do it ever since he bought it when he knew when he purchased he purchased it when it was merged. So we all agreed that the best way to do it was to go back if it was going to be split to those two parallel lines but so what he's saying wasn't true for us at 255 we do not have this buffer zone so I want you guys to please take that into consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything that you can think of that would create the kind of visual privacy from your property to the Martz property? CRAIG CANTELMO : It's difficult right now because he cut everything down right along the property line and he put up these arborvitaes that most of them are if they are not dead yet they're dyeing. It was to prepare for this and if you've been to the property you'll see that they still have the blue tags on them but they're not doing well. Arborvitaes don't grow there. We have all the scrub oaks that go through there in our natural environment there so the way it's set up now truly it would be difficult to plant something that would give us any kind of buffer from lights because right now both lots are both houses are rented and they've been rented since the developer has purchased the lots okay so the way he cut that driveway in preparation for this he cut down the property line and it makes a turn that would be that flagged lot right into the cottage so we have the lights going into our bedroom every time they go by. I mean I understand that things like that can happen but to be able to put big enough trees in there the buffer would be very very difficult right now. So I'm concerned about what that buffer would be moving forward if he were to get this if you look at the plan it only shows all the way past our house and halfway up our property there's no buffer because that's where the driveway is going to go. So we feel like we would be adversely affected by this decision okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George can you hear me alright? He's been frozen in time. Okay you're alright now. We can hear you and see you. Would you like to ask a question? MEMBER HORNING : What I noticed was that a couple of times when this happened it shut off my video on this end and I had to manually reconnect the video. Well I was going to inquire they did offer to make a 20 foot wide buffer the entire length of the west boundary line of the property isn't that correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that's correct. MEMBER HORNING : You think that we is there any need for any kind of evergreen I just heard the story about the evergreens dyeing on the east side what kind of a buffer would there be on the west side? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if there's enough first of all it would require really going out there and doing another site inspection in better weather where you can really see exactly IN March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting what natural vegetation is on the premises. Generally, if it's oak then arborvitae doesn't do well in that soil. It's acidic usually Leyland cypress would work they're more shade tolerant as well as sun tolerant they sort of grow in anything and grow very wide and very very tall. I think the type of buffer MEMBER HORNING : I guess what we in addition to require any particular type of planting or are we just going to go with a natural undisturbed buffer that's what we would go with? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know yet. This is fact finding. We're going to have to hear people's ideas and you know think it all through and see. As I recall there were trees on the property hard wood trees but there's nothing mast there's no like uncut woodland or scrub that I can recall. MEMBER SCNEIDER : The deer eat it all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea and what's left the deer have probably taken care of. The underbrush is gone from the North Fork period. Do you have any thoughts or comments? KEVIN MCGOWIN : Our proposal was in terms of the buffer to simply have a natural undisturbed buffer. There's oak I don't know if you call forest but there are oak trees, there's natural wooded area and we just proposed to leave that as is if there is a reasonable planting plan that the Board proposes we would be amenable to that but the buffer that we had proposed was simply to and we'd be happy to covenant that we won't there will be no disturbing of that buffer. We won't knock it down and create a lawn there'll be nothing of that sort and as I said earlier we'd be willing to increase the setbacks along those side lot lines so that aside from having a natural buffer in terms of an undisturbed wooded area there would also be no structures within you know double the distance of the R40 which is 15 foot for either side yard and 35 foot total side yard so you'd be talking about at least 30 feet from that side yard and 70 feet total from both side yards as opposed to 35 feet and that I think speaks to Mr. Cantelmo's concern at least to some extent that to the extent we can't put a buffer in the right of way. There won't be any structures located but then double the distance of the setbacks and if there is some sort of fencing that could be put up or we agree that it's difficult to put planting in the right of way you really can't obstruct that but if there was some way to private some sort of buffer be it a fence or something along those lines we would be amenable to that as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any comments or questions from anyone else? Alright well then yes just come to the mic and state your name once again for the transcript. XAVIER FLEMING : Xavier Fleming 375 Wunewetta Rd. With this back and forth and Mr. Martz is certainly pursuing this rather diligently and god knows how long this will go on. From where I stand I'll speak for myself not the Rehm's or the Cantelmo's if the Board is going to consider In March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting passing this lot line that will be changed to run parallel to the street you can I don't know if you will or not but you can restrict it to keep any structure on the property where the cottage is now and limit the potential expansion size of it because if the main house stays where it is and a buffer is put on Rehm's side I won't speak for you Linda but that'll probably satisfy her. If the cottage remains where it is and something is done to protect Craig on the east side and you're right arborvitaes, evergreens I've tried everything they don't work in the shade but if something can be done there that would make him happy. If the potential for a 4000 sq. ft. house to be built in the center of this newly proposed lot is eliminated that would make me happy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I must say the Board doesn't have the authority to restrict property rights that conform to the code. XAVIER FLEMING : That's the problem with giving him the conforming lot in the back then. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can't take away somebodies as of right. XAVIER FLEMING : You can't put a restrictive covenant on it an approval? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can put C & R's on something things and it's possible that the Planning Board might do exactly that. They will have to should this go forward they will have to again go to the Planning Board to have this codified with the subdivision okay. We would be granting the setbacks we will deal with the Bulk Schedule. XAVIER FLEMING : Right, right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they often put C & R's on things but I don't see how you can legally deny someone an opportunity to build something that is in fact conforming to the code. XAVIER FLEMING : Okay I was just thinking in the spirit of compromise so if that's the case I'm absolutely opposed to the application as it stands. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where's your property? XAVIER FLEMING : Lot 202 (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Show me. XAVIER FLEMING : This is my property here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay that's what I thought just checking. Thank you. Alright hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date. NJ March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Aye. Thank you all very much for your comments. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6836 — NAKO and SOSE RIZO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Rizo # 6836 request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 9, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for an "as built" addition to existing single family dwelling, at; less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet, located at: 400 East Road (corner Inlet Drive) Mattituck, NY. SUM # 1000-106-3-2. Is someone here to address this application? JOAN CHAMBERS: Yes I am my name is Joan Chambers I live at 50620 Route 25 in Southold. I'm an agent for the owner I did the drawings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any green cards for us? JOAN CHAMBERS: Yes I believe I turned some in and I have some more. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good thank you. Everything is in order. Okay this is for an "as built" addition to a single family dwelling with a rear yard setback of 32 feet where the code requires 35. This is an added unheated mud room to an existing rear entry. It's 10.3 feet by 7.8 feet. There was an existing mud room that was 7.8 by 4.2 feet. The applicant expanded it by 6.3 feet and there is a C.O. for the second floor accessory, is there a C.O. for the second floor accessory apartment? NN March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : No there isn't. I was attempting to get a C.O. for the first floor accessory apartment when the issue of the mud room came up and so the Building Department did a disapproval so we can straighten out the C.O. for the existing residence as a single family residence. Once that's clear then we'll address the accessory apartment as a whole separate issue. So we're not discussing the accessory apartment tonight just this "as built" mud room on the back of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay as long as we are aware that there's more legal work that has to be done on this property. JOAN CHAMBERS: Yes, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a corner lot. JOAN CHAMBERS: Yes it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it's very small addition. Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about it? JOAN CHAMBERS : The small mud room existed when Mr. Rizo bought the house and he expanded it without a building permit. He understands now that that was not a good idea so we're you know hoping to get a variance so that he doesn't have to remove it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken any questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No. I think he should of gotten a permit that's about it but I think he probably would have been granted the relief it's not that substantial. Is it heated space? JOAN CHAMBERS : No it's not. No radiators in it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code requires 35 feet this is 32 feet. That's really all that's before us at this point. Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : Would you be amenable to a condition on the decision that required you to come back to address the accessory apartment? JOAN CHAMBERS : I have no objections to that I expect to come back and address the accessory apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But this is not an accessory structure. This is one that is now as of right. It used to come to the Zoning Board when you created an accessory apartment in a 23 March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting principal dwelling it used to need a Special Exception Permit from the ZBA but when we changed to add the accessory structures and took that over then as long as the apartment is compliant with the square footage requirements and the entry requirements and fire code then they can do it as of right but they have to get that straightened out with the Building Department. They can apply if they have to for variance relief. For example it's slightly over or slightly under the requirement then they Building Department would write a Notice of Disapproval and send them to us otherwise it's now handled through the Building Department. Is there anyone in the audience who wished to address this application? Anything from you Gerry or Ken? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No just I'm very familiar with the property cause I live in Mattituck and I actually knew the original owner of the property Mrs. Orricio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you George? MEMBER HORNING : No. We could note the existing setback at 24 feet 8 inches 24.8 feet that's correct the existing setback? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe so. MEMBER HORNING: It shows on the survey as CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's without the mudroom. MEMBER HORNING : Right. They're just slightly off on the and again I don't know why people build things "as built" but I guess she didn't realize she needed a permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GEOHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. am March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6837 — CUTCHOGUE 6213, 6291, 6278, 6204 I.I.C. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Cutchogue 6213, 6291, 6278, 6204 LLC this is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-105C the Building Inspector's December 15, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct 8 foot high deer fence around entire four lot sub -division, at; 1)8' deer fence proposed in location other than side and rear yard, located at: 6213, 6291, 6278, 6204 Oregon Road (adj. to Long Island Sound) Mattituck, NY SCTM # 1000-82-2-3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4. DAVID JANUZZI : Good evening madam chairman members of the Board my name is David Januzzi I'm the agent for the applicant and the various forms the 4 LLC's before us. The relief sought as you had said is really amounts to a perimeter fence around the outside of the four lots because of the orientation of the lots as per the subdivision and it calls into question that some of the deer fence would have to be in the front yard (inaudible) As it would be apparent it's a pretty remote site I would guess a quarter or half a mile off Oregon Rd. to a private drive on the west side of the property and I would just note that a similar the impact being minimized by the fact that it's so far off of Oregon Rd. and I was before this Board I think it (inaudible) East Marion property same deal very far off the road and the Board saw to give the relief at that point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would be Windsong I believe. DAVID JANUZZI : Windsong Cove correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Surrounding property is agricultural and woodland primarily undevelopedk There's two of the four lots are developed. DAVID JANUZZI : The northern two lots are have structures on them correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do have notice from the LWRP coordinator that it is consistent. The fence would not be located within the 50 buffer from the top of the bluff. That was established by the Planning Board by thru C & R's. DAVID JANUZZI : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Closest residence is about 700 feet away. How long do you think it is that right of way from Oregon Rd. up to the sound where the properties are? go March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting DAVID JANUZZI : I've driven I want to say a quarter to a half a mile but I schedule 9 description. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it on the survey? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It would probably say the distance from the nearest road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's the survey. Sometimes they're on the surveys. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : From the tax map it's 2000 can't read it. It's like 2600. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you estimate the perimeter fencing that you're proposing to establish, what percentage would be non -conforming? In other words I guess the stuff that would be front yard. DAVID JANUZZI : I think it's going to be probably about a quarter of the overall of the project. The two lots are undeveloped so I don't know. It's the orientation from the subdivision that brings it into effect cause the access to the property is really half way between the north and south properties you make right turn into the properties and it's the access of the'road that I guess orientates where the front of the property is to be considered. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I see. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well it would appear that lot 4 would have two front yards and lot 3 would have one front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It speaks to the issue of substantiality and so I'm trying to figure out if we can get some reasonable calculation about the percentage of perimeter fencing that would be non -conforming. And certainly the Board does have some precedent with regard to being visible from a public road and half a mile from that that's a private right of way correct? DAVID JANUZZI : It is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes ok. That's an easement across other property? DAVID JANUZZI : I believe so yes. MEMBER DANTES : What is it a nursery in front of it does that have a deer fence that's already on the public road? DAVID JANUZZI : It does. MEMBER DANTES : Does that deer fence also border your applicant's property? IN March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting DAVID JANUZZI : It does only on the southern border what we were concerned with is the future that use changes they take down the deer fence we would have to come back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you want your very own? DAVID JANUZZI : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you who did your survey? Corwin. Can you get him to calculate the percentage of non-conformance? DAVID JANUZZI : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well how would we do that he would have to develop a conforming building location and then assume that the house would be built to those locations? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one thing that could happen is you could go to the Building Department ask them to make a determination on what is front yard given this particular plat and then based upon that information from them ask the surveyor simply to run the linear footage. DAVID JANUZZI : Would it require speculation on that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that does make yea it is a little difficult with them unimproved only because I guess Vicki just pointed out to be quite correctly that in the case of two lots the applicant would have the option of determining which would be their front yard how they want to orient the subject dwelling on the property. DAVID JANUZZI : There was another way to do what we need (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me think if I can figure out how to do this. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : An existing dwelling is such an important part of determining the location of the fence I don't see how we can rule on a vacant piece of property without something proposed on it a dwelling being proposed on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess well one thing we can do is since the they didn't determine the front yard all they said was that some of this is non -conforming. Some of it they didn't say what percentage in the Notice of Disapproval cause I guess they couldn't. It just says that in front side and rear yards around entire subdivision of 4 single family lots. It just says it's prohibited in or along the front yard of any property which we all know so I'm simply trying to add one other criteria that could be helpful in our on-going struggle with trying to establish some perimeters for when such fencing is reasonable and when relief from the code is justifiable and as you know from the previous from the Windsong determination setback from a EE March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting principle road has been one of the criteria we've used if it has no adverse impact. I mean the spirit of the code which we were certainly involved in writing had to do with the fact that if you're talking about attempting to put an 8 foot high fencing right along a public road that's seen by lots of neighbors then that's problematic because you're going to look like a whole street full of cages and the intent was to protect some of the property the side yards and the rear yards. In the instances where there is such a remote site that none of those impacts are substantial the Board has attempted to create standards whereby setbacks play an important role so I would like to try to speak to the substantial nature of the variance in two ways. One would be the setback from Oregon which is over a half a mile the other has to do with the surrounding properties which we already defined as basically woodland and agricultural and the third would be the percentage of non-conformance being proposed. Now maybe we can't determine that but we could look at this Board can make an interpretation not a formal one that would become codified but we could figure out what we would deem to be a front yard. DAVID JANUZZI : I think that would be problematic to try to come up with a number just because of the unknown variance of where structures could be permitted. You'd have a building envelope and from there you'd have to determine what the front yard would be. So to commit them to a certain CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't want to do that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea what if they came before the Board and you know required a front yard setback and we say well I'm sorry you can't have it because this fence is here now or such things. DAVID JANUZZI : It would only be problematic from, the two southern (inaudible) MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea it's really hard to determine cause something exists. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you move your mic up I don't know that it's picked up. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : These are all separate owners or are they all family related? DAVID JANUZZI : It's family related. MEMBER DANTES : But they're separate corporations. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea I but mean in a unique setting you know you can basically say similar to what we did in Windsong how far it was from a specific location. RM March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to have to study this property. Obviously we could act on the two developed properties but I can understand the logic of your wanting to just simply do this in one stage. DAVID JANUZZI :Correct yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it is very difficult to determine what's going to be front yard. So the only way that we can probably proceed with this is that there will be some percentage of non -conforming fencing that may have that have the definition changed as a property is improved with a structure with a dwelling but we would have to base this fundamentally on setback for a principal dwelling rather than MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I think the two developed lots CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We definitely can talk about the two developed properties that's not a problem you know exactly what the perimeters are it's rather difficult to I guess to do this with undeveloped property. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Something we might want to consider as well with lot number 1 because it's soundfront does the garage in the front yard so would we if a fence was proposed does that create the side yard or front yard location of the proposed 8 foot deer fence or is it the dwelling? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's probably the principal structure the accessory structure maybe determine to be in a conforming or non -conforming location because it's waterfront you got a couple of options as to where it can go. I would say the principal structure would take precedence. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Maybe the Building Department has to take a look at CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Building Department can advise us but again they would they can tell us on the developed property they cannot tell us other than some of it is non- conforming until such time there's a developed property cause they the applicant does have the right to determine orientation of the structure on the property. This presents I think a unique and unprecedented situation for us. We're perfectly happy to grapple with it but we're trying to figure out what information we need in order to do so. You're looking up the Code? I see flipping pages. A.T.A KIELY : Yea you can't determine front yard unless you have an improved property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea exactly. Well any thoughts on this? am March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Did we find out if it's a driveway or a right of way? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a right of way. It's gotta be an easement across somebody's property. You can't have a half a mile long private right of way without a getting a C & R. You gotta have an easement so DAVID JANUZZI : The survey doesn't have a piece of land driving down all the way to Oregon so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No and it didn't note you know distance. Sometimes they do it didn't. but we know the distance is very substantial that's really not the question. It's just a matter of to what extent can we responsibly act on this proposal with regard to deciding what is non -conforming we don't know what the front yards are. DAVID JANUZZI : If we just go by what this code calls for the setback and that would be mandated if they weren't going to build it any further then we know what the front of the yard would be correct? We just go with the setback from the front yard and be able to calculate it that way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Depends on which way you orient the house. That's the thing I mean and then the rear yard is defined by code as the yard that's opposite the front yard except when you're on a corner lot then you get to choose. We're juggling some variables. What I don't want to see happen is to have any potential property owner constrained as a result of the decision. They should have their rights intact and you know so to be preempted then go ahead and do this on undeveloped property may in some way have an unintentional adverse impact on choices they can make. DAVID JANUZZI : I guess they would always have the option of removing the fence, self constricting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's true. I don't know what else if you have any suggestions or things that you think the Board should consider or actions the Board thinks we could take to further investigate the consequences of this decision we're certainly amenable to doing so. DAVID JANUZZI : I think perhaps the guideline of the setback and then maybe to determine if the Building Department would consider multi fronted then we'd have to work from that and then we'd be able to find out the percentage of non-compliance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, how about MEMBER DANTES : I'm just looking at I'm thinking maybe the easement should control the front yard just because it acts like a road. It gives access to multiple lots and we'll just base the location of the easement we'll calculate what the front yard is. go March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea that's come before us before when there's an easement when that parcel has access to the next (inaudible) and front yard MEMBER DANTES : And then we'll just base the decision off of that MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And if you look at lot 4 it's constricted with two front yards. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that's right. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And lot 3 has the front yard created by the easement. MEMBER DANTES : So then would it be just lot 4 that would need the variance and lot 3 would MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No lot 3 would also need it cause it has it would have a front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea this edge the southern edge is going to be a front yard and the western MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well the southern edge of lot 3 would be the rear yard of lot 3. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that's considered the front. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I know I can't speak (inaudible) Building Inspector but if this is certainly a right of way from our past experience that would be the front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well again they have a choice. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is there a road here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. But that typically fronts on Oregon Rd if you look at it's orientation. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But there's no parcel there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is another parcel. DAVID JANUZZI : The nursery is in front of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that's another parcel. So probably we can determine that to be a rear. Well you see what the issues are. Perhaps we should give you an opportunity to think this through and possibly confer with the Building Department and give us any kind of written commentary that you'd like to submit to us that might help clarify the goals and the intent and something that we can wrap our heads around could be part of the decision and so we could always close subject to receipt of comments from you with regard to front yard frontage. No March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting DAVID JANUZZI : This was an add on this meeting so your work session is two weeks from? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. We'll have a Special Meeting in two weeks April 2"d but we do try to write draft in between now and then so the sooner we get it the better. Take a couple of days or whatever you need to send something into the office. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The southern parcel that's AG that's an orchard? DAVID JANUZZI : I'm sorry sir. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The others property adjacent to lot 3 and 4 that's agricultural? DAVID JANUZZI : No sir a tree nursery yea. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so they are permitted by right to have fencing around their property. DAVID JANUZZI : Yes on the southern border of 3 & 4. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yea. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That might be to your client's benefit that they have that 8 foot fence there. DAVID JANUZZI : We considered that but we also thought that a change in the future of what goes on at that property would make us come back. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That's true. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It very well could again depending on if or how or which way the properties were developed you know you see what I'm saying? It may very well be that lot 3 southern boundary is a rear yard and it would be conforming whereas lot 4 would probably have a side yard and then that would be conforming. You see what I'm saying. Except maybe if the house was here a teeny piece of it would be in the front yard. So again hypothetical decisions based on hypothetical conditions are not solid decisions. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I think the best we could do would be to look at a conforming building envelope and try to make some type of determination from that best case scenario. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think Eric's on to viable strategy the question is let's give you an opportunity to see what you can come up with now that you understand what we're grappling with and see what you can produce and we'll do our best to make a wise decision. DAVID JANUZZI : Very good. Thank you very much. 32 March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anyone in the audience? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserving decision to later date, is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Just a second are you going to take testimony of something else from him he comes back to you right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no I'm going to close it subject to receipt of information from Mr. Januzzi. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Ok then I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we are closing subject to receipt but we'll reserve decision to later date. George did you have a question? MEMBER HORNING: No I don't I'm ok. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright. Just for you who are new in the audience we've been grappling with SKYPE'ing our Fisher's Island board member who is allowed to vote he's not in absentia he is only in I don't know what you call it he's in a cloud someplace. He's on Fishers Island somewhere. Closed subject to receipt of front yard determinations. All if favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6834 — ROBERT and BETH ELLIOTT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Robert and Beth Elliott # 6834. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 19, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting permit for additions and alterations (second story) to existing single family dwelling, at; 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, located at: 275 West Road (adj. to Cutchogue Harbor) Cutchogue, NY. SCTM # 1000-110-7-11.1. Is someone here to represent the application. DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes my name is Doug McGahan. I live in Cutchogue 1820 Stillwater Ave. I'm here as an agent representing the Elliott's for the application to the Board. I have with me Beth Elliott the owner if any questions or make a statement regarding intended use for the property. And I also have the designer David Mann the architect who drew the plans that you all have copies of to answer any technical questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay very good. Well just for the record let me enter the following information. This is LWRP exempt you have that letter I presume. The front yard setback is being proposed at 33.3 feet where the code requires 40 feet and the side yard setback is at 3.7 feet where the code requires 15 that is a pre-existing non -conforming side yard setback for a one story what was a cottage. There are some priors on this property and well start with subject property 1999 ZBA decision #4738 permitted the addition of a garage right with a front yard setback and #5555 in 2004 was to demolish an existing cottage and to build a new home with a bulkhead setback and a second dwelling on the property with conditions and that would be the large house that's now on the water side, seaward side of the property. Everyone has visited the site and inspected it. What would you like to tell us about the proposed I see the addition is for a second story with adding two bedrooms and a bathroom basically. DOUG MCGAHAN : Correct. The first floor footprint is only being modified by about 100 sq. ft. just to square off part of the structure to make the design more favorable. The existing setbacks were again existing to the garage. The garage was built back in I think you said '99 with the 32 foot setback and 3.1 we're not approaching any further we're not going further towards the side yard or the front yard with our proposed work. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a very unusual property. There were two small cottages. Now we have one very large principle dwelling and the proposal based on the plans and elevations you've submitted would create fairly substantial second dwelling on the property. DOUG MCGAHAN : The primary dwelling is really not that large. It's only a two bedroom home. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one on the seaward side? DOUG MCGAHAN : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a C.O. for two cottages on the property. Im March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes the original cottage was replaced with that dwelling by the water and the existing cottage we're here for was the second cottage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The 3.7 is very very close to the property line. It is adjacent to recreational you know park area and it's used by the public. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No it's actually it's a private club. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's a Pequash Club the public goes in there I mean it's members of MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea but the beach is actually on the opposite side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes on the opposite side. DOUG MCGAHAN : Again that's setback was existing when the Elliott's purchased the property. We're not here to attest that it's just part of the project that we're building up from that we're not going any further towards it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct however as proposed but when you increase the mass vertically you are increasing the degree on non-conformance of that 3 foot setback. DOUG MCGAHAN : I understand that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : substantially. Have you looked at the possibility of creating a second story that's set back farther in other words not building up on the same wall but stepping it back from the side yard to increase that setback? DOUG MCGAHAN : The size of the structure really doesn't allow that because on the other side is the driveway and the driveway is only narrow enough to put one car parked and then another car to get around it so to push the garage further towards the other property line didn't seem feasible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I'm not really talking about changing the footprint. I'm talking about the second story not going up as a sheer wall from the existing first story with the side yard issue. In other words you can have a house that's let's say that tall and then put a second story on instead of that way that way stepping it back. It's a narrow structure but we're trying to explore the possibility of other options. DOUG MCGAHAN : Yea it is but we one of the reasons it was designed the way it was was to minimize the height so a low pitched roof where the roof came down to knee walls so the new building is only going to be 6 feet taller than the existing building so it doesn't look like a huge ME March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting structure especially since this building is in a low basically you look over it from the road or from the other properties across the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the ridge height? DOUG MCGAHAN : 22 foot 8 inches. The existing ridge is 16.6 the new one would be 22 foot 7. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that's quite low. We should take that into consideration. DOUG MCGAHAN : I have some photos I'd like to share with the Board from the property across the road and I know that there was opposition from that neighbor. These pictures just illustrate the a six foot addition to the top of the structure really is not going to affect the view at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thanks so much. Well it's very helpful but it's only a 6 foot high addition. It looks substantially more though I have to say. DOUG MCGAHAN : Well on the big blueprints yea it looks larger but really the facts are and that's why it was designed with a low pitched roof to minimize the height cause we didn't want it to look like a mansion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are the people who live in these two structures same family or different? DOUG MCGAHAN: Yep. BETH ELLIOTT : Hi I'm Beth Elliott so I have a daughter and a son my husband and I do so it's a two bedroom second floor in the main house and so my son has a wife and two children so we try to have the cottage with all four of them by making modifications. We put in pocket doors and having my kids in the living room and you know it's getting very complicated and my grandsons sleep in one room and my granddaughters sleep in another and so we've run out of space and we were just hoping we can add two bedrooms and you know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. MEMBER HORNING : I was curious in regard to the character of the neighborhood if the applicant has any information that could tell us about the neighborhood itself how many other parcels if any have two single family dwellings on the (inaudible). DOUG MCGAHAN : I'm not familiar with that at all I'm sorry. Actually I'm sorry. BETH ELLIOTT : Marshall Cross lives right next door so he has a main house and a cottage too. Right next door adjacent on the west side and he said to us he's really happy we're improving the property. 11 March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And do you know of any other non -conforming side yards in the area? Are there other structures that are really close to side yards? DOUG MCGAHAN : Two houses up the road up the hill there's a very large home. The Young's own that and it's only about 15 feet from the road. It's very large a two story home. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that would be a front yard setback that's non -conforming. DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What's the total square footage that you're putting on the second story? DAVID MANN : Hello my name is David Mann I'm the architect for the project. Essentially we're adding two bedrooms above the existing garage so the footprint of the garage is about 20 by 20 that's 400 sq. ft. so the two bedrooms above are approximately that same area slightly less less than 400 maybe 350 sq. ft. of additional bedroom space above the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what about the well you got some stairs which is not a part of the livable floor area but you got a bathroom also we're just trying to get a rough idea of what percentage. We can calculate it I can look at it and calculate but better if you do. Just look at the perimeter. DAVID MANN : Including that bathroom upstairs and the bedrooms maybe about 550 sq. ft. total upstairs. GERRY GOEHRINGER : Thank you. DAIVD MANN : We did some the site coverage calculations and we've only added 100 sq. ft. to the overall footprint of the house increasing the total lot coverage from 12.4 to 12.86 or 7. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anyone else in the audience DAVID MANN : If I just may add one thing I brought a sketch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely. DAVID MANN : (inaudible) simply increase the height by six feet you can see how low we kept the exterior walls. The knee walls are only about five feet high. That's how we made every attempt CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a low pitch too. Okay is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? Anything else from the Board? March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Leslie just one second. Gerry asked about the square footage of the proposed second story is it the same as the first story the square footage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no the first floor is only adding about 100 sq. ft. to basically just even out a couple of jogs in the perimeter of the building. The second story is proposed is about the total of 550 sq. ft. Two small bedrooms and one bathroom with some stairs basically. Anything else? Now hearing no further comments or questions I make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6841 MARK KING CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board actually I'm going to open both. There are two applications. One is for a code interpretation of the Bulk Schedule and that is the first one on the agenda. The second is for variance relief for demolition and construction of a new single family dwelling. I'm going to open the both at the same time because they're extremely intertwined and that way we can talk about them both at the same time okay. So let me read the Notice of Disapproval into the record. Mark King # 6841 this is a request under Section 280-146D for an interpretation of the Town Code, Article XXIII, Section 280-56, "Bulk Schedule", appealing the Building Inspector's December 11, 2014 Notice of Disapproval for demolition and construction of a new single family dwelling (residential use) in MII Zone district that requires side yard setbacks, located at: 200 East Mill Road (adj. to Mattituck Creek) Mattituck, NY. SCTM # 1000-106-4-5. This is an interpretation of the Bulk Schedule regarding setbacks of a residential use in an MII Zone. That's it in a nutshell okay cause the residential March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting setbacks are different than setbacks in a MII Zone. The second application is for Mark King # 6842 request for variance from Article what is this XIII Section 280-56 and the Building Inspector's December 11, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for demolition and construction of a new single family dwelling, at; less than the code required side yard setback of 25 feet, located at: 200 East Mill Road (adj. to Mattituck Creek) Now in this particular proposal there is a setback proposed of 9.9 feet. The new survey shows it 10 feet 9.9 and 11.6 side yard on the southerly line. The point is depending on how the Bulk Schedule is interpreted the Bulk Schedule is interpreted in a certain way to apply residential setbacks then the need for variance relief will not be required. So that's why I opened them at the same time. The idea would be if you're required to you are going to demolish it you're required to set it at 15 feet let's see this is not a request to maintain the pre-existing non- conforming that was original now it's going to be if you have to do it's going to be 15 feet. So let's look at the Bulk Schedule first. Tell us what you would like to tell us about your reason for requesting an interpretation. GARY STEINFELD : Hi my name is Gary Steinfeld 385 Grathwohl Rd. New Suffolk, representing Mark King. The original application that the Building Department was based off of reviewing the Code and we put a site plan in for demolition of the structure, some modifications to the existing foundation and reconstruction into two stories maintaining two bedrooms. From our point of view we put in a building permit we were not looking for a variance we chose to move the foundation to conform to what we believe was the required 15 yard setback. That's what the first hearing before us is and that is based on reviewing the existing code and following what the Building Department gave us as the Bulk Scheduled. When I reviewed the 280-56 requirements it sends us to 280 attachment 4 and that is the Bulk Schedule for Mil. When you review that Bulk Schedule if you look at the note in column one under District it very clearly states that the minimum requirements for business office industrial or other non-residential use are depicted in this Bulk Schedule. If you then look at the note one which it refers you to it then states that the for minimum requirement for residential uses which is the case before us now this is a single family residence or home it refers first to the density and minimum lot size schedule for non-residential districts and then you go to the appropriate column and the Bulk Schedule for residential districts. So if we follow through the clear delineation and the schedule we would then go from this 280 attachment 4 now over to the density and minimum lot size schedule for non-residential districts that's 280 attachment 2 which I believe you guys have in front of you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep we have it. GARY STEINFELD : If we look at the title under Town of Southold it clearly we can look at the first note one which gives you a little clarification how to follow this table and note one just IN March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting gives you a little explanation of what the roman numerals are and the columns telling you that refers to the applicable column in the third schedule which would be the residential bulk schedule. So if we then look at this 280 attachment too we go down column one to a residential unit without utilities we slide over to MII district and look in that column it gives us the roman numeral that we just spoke about of 7 that's the roman numeral that now have to take to the residential bulk schedule which is 280 attachment 3 and that's what's referenced in the note at the bottom of attachment 2. If we now go down to Roman numeral 7 and the top slide down to that column and we slide down to the side yard setback requirement it's 15 feet and that's what we based our application on. When I went into the Building Department and we discussed it with the building department they just felt that the may have been some clarification that they needed to be comfortable for following the schedule that way and that's what brings us before this Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Makes perfectly good sense. Well we you know I think each of us has personally reviewed the Bulk Schedule and convoluted as it is the logic is there and there's reasons why there's little asterisks and footnotes and so on and although it may be more obscure than one would prefer in terms of having to read it I think you accurately described what certainly I read when I looked at the Bulk Schedule. I don't really have any questions about that does anybody else? Eric or George or Gerry, Ken? We've all looked at it in preparation for this hearing and while we're fact finding we don't make determinations obviously in the same day that we have a public hearing. The point is is that the variance relief should this should the notice of disapproval be upheld rather than interpreted differently GARY STEINFELD : Well it is the intention of my client to move forward with the 15 yard setback you know MEMBER GOEHRINGER : 15 feet. GARY STEINFELD : 15 feet side yard setback as long as the interpretation is following what we believe it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood. GARY STEINFELD : So the variance that we're going for on the 9.9 is a separate from the decision you know based here unless we really feel that there's some non -clarification here or we feel that there's a possible (inaudible) differently than I have then I think we would want to pursue that variance if we have a comfort level that we're reading the Code correctly and we're entitled to a 15 foot side yard setback then I think we're comfortable staying there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if in fact the MII Zoning was applied you would be requesting a 15 foot side yard setback where the Zoning Code required a 25 foot side yard setback in a E: March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting nutshell. I mean assume let's say cause we can't for a certainty at this point it's not appropriate to deliberate at a public hearing. MEMBER DANTES : Can I present an idea? Maybe we close the Code interpretation and we leave the other application open subject to a later date? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can certainly do that. GARY STEINFELD : Can I just so that I have a level of understanding what the procedure going forward is what other information are we trying to look for on interpretation of reading Bulk Schedules at this point? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing. Nothing with regards to the Bulk Schedule which is why Eric was proposing we just close that and make a determination because the facts are in front of us. There's no debate about it. It's just a matter of if the Board is following that logic and then it will be helpful to the Building Department cause we'll set a precedent for them to in future apply the code that way. GARY STEINFELD : I mean the spirit of having these two hearings the same day obviously was so we weren't losing time and cost. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here's the thing. We can address let's say in theory if you needed variance relief then why don't we discuss that now and then we'll have the information and then we can just close both of them and make a decision okay and if variance relief is not required based upon our code interpretation we will simply note that in the determination and then that goes away and the Building let me recess for a minute. What I'm going to try to do is poll the Board to see whether or not it is not protocol wise we rarely do this but in fact because the first code interpretation is so straight forward we will still have to write a determination but if the Board is willing to discuss it a bit. We may be able to move forward somewhat this evening to decide whether or not the second application is necessary. So I'm going to make a motion to recess to executive session for five minutes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. ME March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's how we're going to proceed. We've just discussed this code interpretation among ourselves and based upon the public record that has been created here the Board is going to vote now in front of the public on whether or not we agree with the facts that you presented into the public record with regard to an interpretation. Once that's done we will write a decision that will happen within the next two weeks at the very earliest. We have 62 days but we'll get it done sooner than that. We'll have to write it up and then we'll have to vote on that decision. You can't do anything until the decision is in place in writing okay. So let me do a roll call vote. I'm going to put the question this way are you in favor of the facts in the record with regard to the interpretation of the Bulk Schedule as presented? That's the question I'm asking. So you vote either alright what we're doing is actually voting on the decision now but you can't do anything until we have it written up. I just want to clarify. We're not going to revote we're voting now. So, I'm going to ask I'll do it one at a time. Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Leslie. Aye. Alright the vote is unanimous. We agree that the interpretation of the Bulk Schedule as presented is the accurate way to interpret and apply residential setbacks in an MII Zone. We will write that decision up and provide it to you and we will make sure the Building Department gets it so they will know how to proceed moving forward with other situations like this. Now, with regard to the variance relief since we've already determined that the 15 setback is going to be conforming this variance is now moot. GARY STEINFELD : That's correct we can withdraw that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So fine we will accept your withdrawal of that application and the hearing is closed and that's that. If you've withdrawn we don't have to vote on it or anything. GARY STEINFELD : Well thank you very much. MN March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. I am now going to close the which hearing number is it hearing # 6834 oh I'm sorry # 6841 yes ok. I make a motion to close that hearing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6838 — MARY ROMAN and ELLEN BIRENBAUM CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is Mary Roman and Ellen Birenbaum # 6838. This is a request for variance from Article XXII Section 280-105C the Building Inspector's December 23. 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct 8 foot high deer fence, at; 1) 8' deer fence proposed in location other than side and rear yard, located at: 740 Poquatuck Lane in Orient. Pat, state your name for the record. PAT MOORE : Yes Patricia Moore on behalf of Mary and Ellen the applicants and I'm ready anytime you are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well because we just informed you that we've all made site inspections I know you're aware of the number of letters that have been going back and forth received all of them PAT MOORE : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of them today hot off the presses and so we want to kind of examine in the record some of the substantive issues. One of the things that there's really two issues here. As you can tell from the previous hearing that you might of listened to the Board ME March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting has set some kind of precedent whereby deer fencing in the front yard can be accomplished given a certain set of mitigating circumstances that do not create any adverse impact on adjacent properties. We have looked at this setback of the front yard from any public right of way, from any public road whether or not it can be seen and the remoteness of the site and those kinds of things and in some cases the percentage of the request relative to perimeter fencing. Now, the we notice that posts are up already okay and the letter indicated that the fencing was started to be put into place without an awareness that a building permit was required when that was when the applicants approached building department they noticed that they were including front yard in the fencing and so that therefore that's why you're here. Now some of those posts have been one letter said that some of them may be in the right of way. I believe the applicant's letter stated that they would have the right of way staked to make sure that the posts were on their property. How far along are we with that? Or nothing yet because it's PAT MOORE : No nothing when they learned that a permit was required and then when they went for a permit they needed a variance. There was nothing done everything just stopped and the posts that are there aren't connected to anything so what the upon application for a building permit then we would properly post not post excuse me stake have the surveyor stake the not the property line the property line is on the opposite side of the right of way but the edge of the right of way the 50 foot right of way so as to make sure that any placement of the fence is properly done outside of the 50 foot right of way so there is certainly no intention of blocking or interfering with the full 50 feet of that right of way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now there have been letters back and forth about primarily impacts potential impacts on access for emergency equipment. That's been a big issue going back and forth and we have one letter indicating the fire department in Orient there wouldn't been any issue and now we have another letter from the fire department as of today basically stating that they want assurance that not only will the 50 foot right of way be clear but 280A requires a 15 foot clearance. PAT MOORE : I saw the we just saw the letter today. The fact is that the right of way is 50 feet so a 15 by 15 foot clearance is not a problem it actually is present today it's Mr. Bredemeyer who wrote the letter his property or the deer fence would in fact be technically his back yard because he his property abuts the private road so we're CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's on the other side of the right of way? But that's his rear yard. PAT MOORE : His rear yard so it's not it's we don't have a front yard with Mr. Bredemeyer. What we can assure any condition of a deer fence approval can place a condition that a 15 by 15 area remain clear. There is existing vegetation and my understanding is that it is consists of March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting some sycamore trees and olive trees which we believe were planted by the subdivision developer as part of the street trees requirements that typically are required on any subdivision so my client doesn't want to destroy or remove any of the trees that provides both screening and privacy because the Poquatuck lane here is for the most part of a it is a private road that serves five lots in total, four lots total. Each of those lots being at least 5 acres in size. So, there's certainly no issue that maintaining the road and my clients did ask the chief and assistant chief to make inspection and assure them because the allegations that it was unsafe for it just wasn't proper was a serious allegation that my clients took very seriously and had the inspection done so the letter that we received really doesn't dispute that in any way. It's just saying you know making sure that the access is remains open and that we have a cleared access area of 15 by 15 both those things are not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where are those olive trees? Are they on the subject property? PAT MOORE : They are on the let's see the south side let me see no I'm sorry the north side I've got myself backwards. The right of way actually encumbers all four lots so on the north side the olive trees are run along the perimeter of each of the individual lots on the north side of their property lines. So, the trees and then you have the 50 foot right of way and then you have additional vegetation that might be in placed on individual lots as part of their landscape plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I'm just asking yea you can come up you gotta state your name. MARY ROMAN : My name is Mary Roman. So when this subdivision was created there was a row of sycamores and a row of olives that were planted. As Pat said as part of as Pat said. So the first two lots were built and then the second two lots were not built. We bought the third lot and at the time we bought the third lot all of that vegetation all of those trees had been overwhelmed by wild roses and so we took all of those wild roses out and so now you may have noticed from your site visit that our right of way is actually the widest one because the other people haven't taken away all of that wild rose. The row of olives is almost on the border with Bredemeyer so the row of olives is at the northern tip of our property as part of the northern tip of the right of way. Is that clear? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what impact would that have on the 50 foot width of the right of way? MARY ROMAN : What impact would the olives have? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The trees. Does it reduce the right of way? MARY ROMAN : They would minimally reduce the right of way. In March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Is there a canopy on those cause right now in the winter you can't really tell. Is it are they trees with a canopy? MARY ROMAN : Yea they go up you know olives can sometimes go out like this we have them pruned so that they go up and they have a canopy. We have them pruned at least once a year. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what I'm trying to do is figure out what all this controversy about these trees is if in fact the subdivision planted in the subdivision who's you obviously maintain the ones that are on your or adjacent to your property. I don't know if it's on your property or if it's in the right of way. PAT MOORE : Well the trees the right of way on their property are the same thing because the right of way bisects it doesn't bisect it goes along the edge of all four lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see so it's an easement across the edge of the lots. PAT MOORE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now I get it. MARY ROMAN : So it's a line of olives that are basically on the property line between us and Bredemeyer and between our neighbors and their neighbors to the north. We're the only ones who have created a lawn between the dirt road and the olives so that there's a lot of space between the dirt road and the olives. So if you got a 50 foot right of way CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I'm trying to understand is this where your house is okay and there's the right of way on the back of your property or the front of your property so are those olives on the side of the right of way that's closest to your house or farthest from your house? MARY ROMAN : Farthest. PAT MOORE : Farthest. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they're adjacent to his back yard. MARY ROMAN : Yes they're almost right on his back yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because it's still technically on your property cause the right of way goes across your property I'm beginning to get this now alright I see you see what's going on with that? With regard to the accessing of equipment you know that since it's a private road it has to be privately maintained obviously and the it would certainly be bizarre for home owners that have homes of the value that these homes are not to be maintaining that right of way in a reasonable way for access for emergency access March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : You want to put on the record how it's maintained every year as far as the road itself? Do you guys as a community CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean we the Zoning Board would not hold one individual accountable necessarily for the maintenance of an entire right of way that four properties use. That's kind of a civil matter or a code enforcement matter that you all are responsible for the maintenance of something that protects your safety. Why don't you come and tell us about the maintenance of the road. PAT MOORE : Do you have questions that you want us at this point MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We just want to know where Bredemeyer's house is. PAT MOORE: Do you know now? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. PAT MOORE : The Bredemeyer property is Old Farm Rd is here and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's their front yard and their back yard. MARY ROMAN : This is their front yard that's his rear yard. This is so the right of way is right here. The row of olives is right here right along. This is our house here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So Bredemeyer's on this one is that house right there? MARY ROMAN : Yes. And this is Poquatuck Lane. MEMBER GEOHRINGER : Does he have any access to Poquatuck Lane? PAT MOORE: No. MARY ROMAN : No, I mean he could drive on it if he wanted to. PAT MOORE : No no he doesn't have legal access. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So you're going to tell us what of kind improvements are done. MARY ROMAN : Right. So of the four households that are on Poquatuck Lane three of us PAT MOORE: Wait I want to make sure that they're CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on wait wait wait come on we'll all having these little side bars here. Hold on a minute let's all just regroup. Say what you'd like to say. Mh March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting MARY ROMAN : Of the three households three of the four households on Poquatuck Lane contribute to the maintenance of Poquatuck Lane. One of the four does not although she obviously benefits from it. Every spring after it's thawed we have Poquatuck Lane graded and fresh material put on and worked into it. The subdivision I think was made in the late 1980's so every year there's more gravel that's put on so even though it's a dirt road it's a pretty good solid base that we have. As I mentioned we've cut back all of the wild growth so that we our 50 foot right of way really is well maintained. Our neighbor to the west has her wild rose not cleaned out but every spring when it grows she has somebody come in with a you know one of those hedge things and cuts it back so that we do maintain the right of way. We as I mentioned in my letter we were very concerned that this issue if right of way was raised in the letter and that it had not been brought to our attention if it truly was a public safety concern so that was the most important thing from our perspective in this letter and so we tried to we're actually fortunate to have the snow delay so that we can try to explore this issue and further clarify it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What concerns me is I went up there with my pick up it is a four door full size pickup and I really couldn't back out of your property. I didn't try to turn around because I didn't know if I was going to get stuck or not. The ice was like unbelievable okay notwithstanding that situation but I really can't believe and this is not a sarcastic statement you're a very nice person that this right of way is 15 feet wide. I you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean 50. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No 15 cleared. MARY ROMAN : We have like many other people have had to spend a lot of money this winter getting Poquatuck Lane and our driveways plowed so if you were there at a time when the snow is really high everything would have been narrow. I mean you wouldn't of had a sense of how wide the right of way is. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well it looked extremely narrow there's no question about that. MARY ROMAN : it is because we just had it plowed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to comeback again. ELLEN BIRENBAUM : Hi I'm Ellen Birenbaum. So if the plowing as you plow the snow is banked up on either side. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of course. No question about it. Im March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The point being that the weather really prevented us despite our best efforts from getting an actually correct visual of the clearance and any potential obstruction. We just can't really logically figure that out until we have better ELLEN BIRENBAUM : On Sunday when a representative from the fire department came the snow had melted to the extent she could look at the area and she assured us that she felt that Poquatuck Lane was better than most private roads and she had no issues preexisting issues and that she did feel as though the deer fence where we showed her where the (inaudible) the deer fence once erected would cause any further issues with fire and safety. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You did write to us about that so what is your reply to this thing from the fire department. Is this them just following up to in writing to basically say just make sure that it stays clear or what? PAT MOORE : Well our understanding was we actually I did ask for something in writing from the chief and the assistant chief because it would help us all and their reaction was well because it's a small community they would prefer to you know just give an oral report that we could then report back to the Board. It's our understanding and we only you know it's here say I don't know how it actually occurred but Mr. Bredemeyer actually went to the meeting of the Commissioners and met with them and I guess ultimately they produced a letter. So, in reading the letter they really aren't saying anything contrary to what had been said to us already and certainly maintaining the code required 15 feet would be what the building inspector would require of us at a minimum anyway. So, ultimately our concern was what did they write? How could they have written something different and in fact if you read the letter I think very diplomatically they're saying there is no problem with the road but the code requires a clearance of 15 by 15 just to make sure that it stays that way and certainly that's not a problem for our client because as I said the fence would be at the 50 foot mark 50 setback so that leaves what at best 15 minus 50 we've got 35 feet of clearance so you've got an extra 15 assuming that 15 is in the center you've got 15 feet on one side and 15 feet on the other. So, there's certainly no issue with a 50 foot right of way that's a very generous right of way for a subdivision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So from the northerly property line now that I understand the right of way is part of your property what is the proposed setback of that fence? PAT MOORE : Outside of the at the 50 foot front yard setback so you place a fence at so as to not impeded the right of way in any way so you have a clear 50. MM March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I just wanted to clarify was it 55 was it 60 was it 50 was it you know because it doesn't show on this really. I mean this is kind of if you know what I'm saying? It's kind of drawn in by hand and there isn't really a PAT MOORE : Yea no the survey shows the 50 foot right of way legal right of way along the 50 foot right of way is where the proposed fence would go. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Where is that post presented right now the last post before you get to the right of way or to the property line? How far away is that? PAT MOORE : What the posts that are there now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yea. PAT MOORE: I don't know where they are. MARY ROMAN : The design of the fence was to not just be a straight fence along the front yard but rather to run within a big woodland bed that we have that goes along the entire expanse of the front yard because we really wanted to bury the fence to the extent that we could and so some of the posts are I can't tell you the exact number of feet but maybe they're 15 feet away from that 50 foot right of way. Some of them a couple of them unfortunately are within the 50 foot right of way because we were not aware of the fact. Those posts obviously have to be moved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the point being if we wrote a determination that indicated that no all posts must be external or with or PAT MOORE: Outside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: outside of the 50 foot right of way PAT MOORE : Right that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and that must be maintained as a clear access. MARY ROMAN : Now that we know that we were quite frankly we were given bad advice by the people we consulted about the fence and now we know and we had no intention of doing something illegal. PAT MOORE : My other suggestion when I checked with their permission what could we can do is after it's installed get a survey that is an as built because then it can be confirmed by the Board and certainly the Building Department cause this is through a building permit process for a deer fence. So, they will verify through the survey that the fence where it's ultimately placed Is March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting is properly outside of the 50 foot right of way so not only will they stake it before it's installed it'll be verified once it's installed so that we don't interfere with the 50 right of way. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Let's go back and take a look at this one second. So everything that is forward of the rear of the house is in the variance aspect. Is that correct? PAT MOORE : Forward of the rear of the house the front yard their front yard. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay so it includes the side yard on both sides of the house and everything forward of that PAT MOORE : Up to the right of way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just this Gerry. That's there already and that's legal it's this. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Right, now ladies I am not here to in any way try to impede this type of situation. This is a beautiful residential district okay and your house is absolutely magnificent okay there's no question about it. You are intending to put or requesting an eight foot fence that excuse my language crummy looking fence in your front yard? I mean I just can't believe that you want to do that. ELLEN BIRENBAUM : Sir I'm an avid gardener I spend all of my time gardening. I've planted extensive local trees and flowers and I spend so much time and energy in deer protection and nothing works. I spray two times a week. We've hired we've set out deer protection fences every winter and they don't work to a certain extent and so for me the beauty of the property is in my plantings and in my garden and that's what's important to me. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I understand. You haven't tried to develop any other type of fence across the front of your property? ELLEN BIRENBAUM : We have fencing that is meets the requirements that don't require a variance and the deer jump over the fences and come up on my patio and eat my plants on the patio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can only put a four foot fence. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No we understand that but you know we've had applications where fences have been higher than that and but they've been ME March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting ELLEN BIRENBAUM : Also as Mary said the fence is at least where we'd look at it it is going to be in vegetation that is very beautiful and if you live with a fence for a while you don't really see it you don't see if from the road. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It blends in CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I must say that the only the thing the deer fencing the mesh material wire material is actually less visually intrusive than a stockade fence or anything else. The posts are what's a pain in the neck. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well it depends upon the situation. But let me ask you the final question and that is when this fence if it is erected, will you be able to get your car or cars off of the right of way enough to open the fence so that the cars are off of the right of way? MARY ROMAN : Yes absolutely. So there would be you know I appreciate your question about why would we put this up and I'm off two minds about it because I would prefer things to be open for the reasons Ellen stated it's too much but so the posts they're 20 feet apart so you know they do kind of blend in. They're wood and the mesh that we have used in our back yard is a black mesh as opposed to the galvanized so it really does disappear a lot. There would be two gates along the front yard. One would be recessed probably about 20 feet from the 50 foot right of way. We have an orchard in our back acreage and so we need to have equipment to be able to go back there and then the one in the driveway would be recessed probably to an equal extent 20 or 25 feet so it would be very easy to pull a car or a truck in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to ask a question. What is the distance the setback from the westerly corner of your property to King St.? how many feet? MARY ROMAN : Right I think it's at least .25 miles. Our house is completely invisible from King St. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 2.5 miles MARY ROMAN: No .25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That sounds more like it. I didn't drive that far in. Ok so like a quarter of a mile. MARY ROMAN : Yea. I mean if I walk I have a pedometer. If I walk from my front door down Poquatuck Lane to King St. it usually says. .2 (inaudible) it's a fair distance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Into the mic you gotta stand near the mic. Alright I think we got the issues covered. George do you have any questions? as March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING: No I don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I have a question. You said you have an orchard? Is that fenced in as well? MARY ROMAN : Yes the orchard is fenced in. It's a one acre orchard. It's fenced in by a deer fence. We applied for and received permission to put a deer fence in our back yard so we have a deer we now have two deer fences actually. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You have two deer fences? MARY ROMAN: Yes MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you put some in they put some across here as well. MARY ROMAN : We have a deer fence in the back yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's here where is it that's existing. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so you have a deer fence around your orchard as well conforming 8 foot high deer fence. Okay. MARY ROMAN: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's permitted now by code. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are obvious reasons the property has just been decimated all over town. MARY ROMAN : And I'm telling you the deer fence in our rear yard we used to have a 4 foot fence the 8 foot deer fence is less obtrusive than the 4 foot fence was cause its much wider mesh and there are fewer posts. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Town is very careful in making this code change to permit 8 foot high fencing 6 was the highest fence you could have. Deer fencing because it's so visually 01 March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting porous by virtue of the code describing the particular kind of materials your allowed to use and I think even the diameter of the posts is a little bit different on residential or it can be than on agricultural properties you know so okay I think I have all I need. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The issue of the deer eating everyone's foliage is shared with everyone throughout the town. Your parcel is not unique to that devastation and I think the spirit of the whole setback for the fence from the front yard is to prevent the whole town looking like a compound. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yea exactly. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That's my opinion. PAT MOORE : No I would certainly agree and but keep in mind that in Orient you have 5 acre zoning and the State has acquired a great deal of the land so you have a very unique circumstance in Orient that it's very agricultural. It's you have Oregon Rd. which is agricultural and you also have Orient which is really not developed other than Village Lane and where you have a dense area there the rest this really lends itself to an AG parcel. This is the start of our AG parcels years ago before we got into the conservation subdivision and other mechanisms now for more open space development. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : In the 80's we called those farmettes. PAT MOORE : Farmettes I call them gentlemen farms that's you know Jeffersonian farms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's get moving here folks. Anything else from anybody. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. March 19, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 1 March 19, 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 : Date : gj-2 o / 1 Elizabeth Sakarellos