Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/07/2015 HearingTOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall Southold, New York May 7, 2015 9:22 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES — Member GERARD GOEHRINGER — Member GEORGE HORNING — Member KENNETH SCHNEIDER — Member VICKI TOTH — Board Assistant STEPHEN KIELY— Assistant Town Attorney 0 May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Richard Manfredi # 6848 Richard Trownsell, David Trownsell and Karen Feuerman # 6845 ADF Ventures, LLC # 6850 Rocky Ledge Partners # 6857 Homes Anew 1 # 6853 Treasure Island Cove, LLC # 6858 John Fischetti and Deborah Deaver # 6854 Rocco Resciniti # 6856 James and Carol Scherer # 6855 W Page 3-9 9-11 11-34 34-37 37-39 40-44 44-47 47-56 56-62 May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6848 — RICHARD MANFREDI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The hearing before the Board is for Richard Manfredi that's # 6848 adjourned from April 2, 2015 so I will not need to read the Notice of Disapproval again. Good morning Mike just state your name please. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning. Mike Kimack for the applicant. Good morning everyone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is for additions and alterations to a single family dwelling. We are now looking at a proposed third floor bathroom where the code only permits habitable space in 2 % stories and that there was a variance granted #6799 in November of 2004 for additions and alterations. This will require a dormer to utilize some of the attic space and it will be used to serve a second floor bathroom is that correct Mike? MIKE KIMACK : The uses serve a second floor bedroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A bedroom I'm sorry. It's less than a 100 square feet of floor space and it is not you can't access the rest of the attic from the proposed bathroom. MIKE KIMACK : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So why is another bathroom needed and why wasn't it applied for in their original application for the additions and alterations? MIKE KIMACK : That question actually may be better answered by Mr. Manfredi basically he's here. From the technical I was basically my approach was to argue before the Board as to why the bathroom does not interdict with any of your prior policies in terms of habitable space for extended stay for duration of stay. In many respects the bathroom in and of itself as a separate facility has less of an intended stay purpose than any of the others that you have already approved whether it be for hobby purposes or gymnasium or office or sitting up there there's no viewable area there's nothing to be spaced. I do know that some of us do have an extended stay longer in a bathroom than others depending upon our motivations but all that aside that the bathroom in and of itself does not in a sense put a person in the third floor any longer and in many respects probably much shorter than any other durational stay that would occur based upon your prior decisions. It's simply a very limited use facility in and of itself. You go you use it you come back out again so I make the argument that there isn't anything that would put the Board in a precedence setting circumstance at otherwise occurred in their prior decisions as to why they denied a bathroom because those decisions had always occurred with a bathroom 3 May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting being added to a hobby room or added to an office or added to something else and that in itself then would substantiate the fact that there would in fact be the probability of use for a longer durational period of time either as a bedroom or as a longer stay during the day but the bathroom in and of itself as only a bathroom is more limited in use than any of the other things that you have approved of for a third floor. And there isn't anything up in the bathroom you cannot use any other space. Once this is done upstairs it locks out anything else. Nothing the rest of the attic is less than 6 feet it would require raising the whole roof so there's nothing else that you could go to from the bathroom once it's put up there that's it, it locks out everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you access the storage a pull down staircase? MIKE KIMACK : There is a small storage. There is you can access off to the side there's an area you can add for storage and that's it but the rest of the front part of the building is less than 6 feet high cause it's a raised platform right there so none of that would be to code anyway for being built in they'd all have to be raised up. This one in and of itself has to be raised for the dormer in order to have access there to meet the requirement of the building code it would be more than 6 feet high. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the question that I actually wonder about is will it need to be would this need to be sprinkled per State codes if it does constitute a third floor. MIKE KIMACK: We would probably expect that the bathroom would be sprinkled and we would go after a variance for the rest of it basically under we've done it under other circumstances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean for the rest of the attic? MIKE KIMACK: The rest of the attic yes basically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what about safe ingress and egress? MIKE KIMACK: Well there's a staircase immediately coming down and after that there's a series of going to the second bedroom floor then there's a staircase that leads right down from there immediate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no window here is there? Yea there is. There's a small window above the toilet is that correct? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. That's it there's no are you talking about the fact of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Emergency in event of a fire. MIKE KIMACK : Emergency the 20 inch window for fire situation. I don't know whether that window looking at it I think it may possibly looking at it there is a window if you look on the A4 91 May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting drawing which I think you've got there on the north elevation which is the you'll see that window there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike is there anything else you would like to tell us? MIKE KIMACK : I'd like Mr. Manfredi to indicate the reasons for that. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. MR. MANFREDI : Good morning I'm Richard Manfredi I'm the homeowner and the reason I'm looking to have another bathroom put there my daughter is expecting our first grandchild. They live in Michigan so they will be visiting from time to time and I want them to have their own private bathroom so they can go up there with themselves and their child etc. etc.. It's probably only you know not many visits but when they come they stay for several days so that's the purpose of putting the third floor bathroom. Questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you didn't you were not aware of that at the time when you applied originally for MR. MANFREDI : No I've been waiting for this grandchild for many years now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well understandable however I just don't want the record to reflect the fact that the Zoning Board is not permitted. legally to personalize variance relief okay. In other words relief granted has to be based upon State statutes and Town laws and not particularly based upon anybody's individual personal circumstances. You can imagine how that would work if we did that. Somebody needs something for their elderly parents and then they sell the house and it isn't needed anymore and meanwhile it has an impact on the neighbors so you know we have to base it upon very strict legal standards but I appreciate your personal circumstances. Does the Board have questions? Alright Jerry we'll start down there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I still think it needs to be sprinkled okay and MIKE KIMACK : The bathroom yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The bathroom. MIKE KIMACK : Yea no I don't disagree with that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER Okay and I just didn't know how you were going on that aspect. MIKE KIMACK : No, no no we were not walking away from we recognize that that would be that would still be a condition basically that would be a requirement there would be no question. May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank you. MIKE KIMACK: I mean you can stand in the bathtub I guess and turn it on. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No it's not that situation assuming somebody was sick okay and didn't want to deal with it they literally can spend more time in a bathroom than most people would normally understand people were spending in a bathroom. MIKE KIMACK : I wouldn't argue that particular circumstance but I think in the overwhelming majority of instances that people go I mean you personalize it to your own experiences when you go and how much time do you spend on a daily basis, 99 percent of the time it's all going to fall within a certain time period. We're all creatures of habit. We have certain patterns to our lives and going to a bathroom for those facilities for those functions are going to fall within that particular time period but I suggest to you that that particular time period is far less than any other time period attributed to any other use that you've already approved for a third floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's interesting is we've always denied plumbing. We've always denied bathrooms and for the reason you basically put forth before the Board because it simply creates more habitability and longer duration of stay. MIKE KIMACK : I know this is I feel a little bit like Don Quixote here but this basically and I looked at it and I recognize that I looked back on your old policy and I said yes the word bathroom does have a certain negative connotation but it was always associated with being associated with a bedroom or an office or something else that would promote that stay but the bathroom by itself without anything else attached to it does not fall under that condition and it does not I don't think create for you a negative precedent that would not many people honestly it's not a unique situation that Mr. Manfredi has but I don't see a lot of people or many many people doing a bathroom only on the third floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George. MEMBER HORNING : Sir how many bathrooms exists right now in this building? MIKE KIMACK: There are three bathrooms in the building. MEMBER HORNING : Three bathrooms. MIKE KIMACK: Yes sir. MEMBER HORNING : One on each of these stories correct? May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I think there is one with there's a master bedroom on the second floor with a master bathroom attached and then two other bathrooms downstairs on the first floor. One in the kitchen and one on the first floor. MEMBER HORNING : Alright I have a couple of other questions. You mentioned A4 I'm looking at that just for a reference most recent variance that we granted last November 6799 looking at this A4 what picture which one of these pictures would best show the area of that we granted the area variance for to enclose the second floor MIKE KIMACK: I believe the north and south elevation George. MEMBER HORNING : North and south. MIKE KIMACK : I'll double check it with north and south you see that extension with the open area below? MEMBER HORNING : In the south elevation? So it's this here and that there? My other question that I while you're standing here here's my next question why does that say top of first floor? I'm trying to figure out what floor that is cause this says top of first floor and yet on the other diagram then if that was the first floor then you got one two three where's the attic? MIKE KIMACK : Yea it's wrong that should be the basement. The first floor is the kitchen area the second floor is the master bedroom something like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.I think part of it is because it's somewhat below grade and remember these properties part of it is considered basement part of it is considered habitable and so the language reflects those stories. MIKE KIMACK: That would be first floor basically. MEMBER HORNING : With the kitchen as you described? MIKE KIMACK: With the kitchen as I described it. MEMBER HORNING : Right here? MIKE KIMACK : Yes sir and the second floor would be the master bathroom and bedroom. MEMBER HORNING : So as we go through these then this is labeled wrong, this is the top of the basement. MIKE KIMACK: Right. MEMBER HORNING : And then each one of these is labeled wrong right? 11 May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : First floor second floor then it would be third floor attic. Sorry about that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you want a new drawing? MEMBER HORNING: Well it's wrong. MIKE KIMACK: We can correct it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yea why don't you submit an updated one. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You presently have two bathrooms correct? MIKE KIMACK: Three. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Three. That's a bathroom coming off the patio? MIKE KIMACK: I'm sorry. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Where's the third one I see one in the master bedroom I see one near the kitchen and where is the third? MEMBER HORNING : There's a basement ground floor not showing. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Oh is there one in the basement? MIKE KIMACK: Is there one in the basement? Yes there's one in the basement. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We don't have a drawing of the basement so that's why I asked that question. So there's one in the basement. Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Yes why not just add a door to the existing bathroom or reconfigure the second floor and add the code conforming bathroom? MIKE KIMACK : Privacy would be the answer without getting into the personalities of usage. It would be a matter of everybody nowadays wants pretty much their own bathroom to use at their own times without interference with other members of the family. MEMBER DANTES : But the bedrooms seem like they're fairly large I mean why not just cut some space off one of the bedrooms and add a bathroom there and then you have a code conforming bathroom. May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : There isn't space within the second floor Eric to create another bathroom without taking away the bedroom and the bedroom is the function for the family to come and use in conjunction with that third floor bathroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? Anything else Mike that you want us to know? MIKE KIMACK : No that should do it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. MIKE KIMACK : Thank you very much have a good day. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6845 — RICHARD TROWNSELL, DAVID TROWNSELL and KAREN FELIERMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Next application before the Board is for_ Richard Trownsell and David Trownsell and Karen Feuerman # 6845. This was adjourned from April 2nd so I do not need to read the Notice of Disapproval or the Legal Notice again into the record. NANCY DWYER : Good morning, Nancy Dwyer on behalf of the Trownsell and Feuerman families. May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so when last we talked you were going to resubmit you were going to do an amended application. We've received the survey I believe that was to create a conforming side yard which is now conforming. I think it looks like you increased the bulkhead setback also did you not. NANCY DWYER : We did increase the bulkhead setback cause we actually once we moved the house into a more conforming location we changed the size of the house slightly. We made it a little bit wider and with that that back room that bumps out behind the house towards the water we changed the proportions of that a little bit to go with the rest of the footprint of the house. So it's still 185 square feet that back area however it's now lengthwise rather than deep towards the water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it looks like what is this bulkhead setback now? NANCY DWYER : It's going to become 69.4 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the front yard setback on this it's still it's 46. NANCY DWYER : 46 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and how large is it? We were going to see if you could make it at least 850 in order NANCY DWYER : It's actually 1025 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Perfect. I have no questions does anyone on the Board have any questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Just a comment. I'm happy to see that you made a more conforming application. NANCY DWYER : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See how easy life could be? I think we just saved you a lot of time and money. Okay anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6850 ADF VENTURES, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for ADF Ventures, LLC. This was adjourned from April 2"d. It is also an application that is before the Planning Board. Will you come forward and state your name please as representative. BILL KELLY : Bill Kelly authorized agent for the owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Bill nice to see you again. We were talking about a possible amended application per Planning Board recommendations. How far along are you in that process? BILL KELLY : We had a work session with the Planning Board and they pretty much as far as the areas of concern on your part they pretty much deferred to you and that would be in reference to the only area of concern for them was the rear yard setback which we're asking for 5 feet and they said that if the ZBA approved that then they would go along with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's review once again what you're actually proposing and then I want to see who let me ask this first. Who in the audience is here to talk about this application? I would like to state one thing in the outset just so you're aware we do have 8 letters in our file alright just come forward and submit it and I'll make sure that the give it to Vicki and we'll make sure that everyone gets a copy alright? Okay so we understand that there are a number of concerns by neighbors about this application and I'm sure that you're aware of that too Bill. BILL KELLY: Yes. May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And again if you'd like to see any of those letters of course the file is available to you and your client. Okay cause Vicki said she sent them to you anyway. BILL KELLY : Yea I've received 4 to 5 of them I don't know that I've gotten any CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so let's look at what's going on here. This particular subject property is zoned light industrial. You're proposing a 2772 square foot building which is 36 feet by 77 feet for an office and warehouse for an electrical contractor's yard including parking for vans and trucks and so on. You're proposing a front yard setback at 10.2 feet where the code averages 16 feet in that neighborhood, 77 lineal feet of frontage on Corwin where the code only permits a maximum of 60 and a rear yard setback of 5.5 feet where the code requires 70 feet. This backs up to a railroad track. The Planning Board suggestion was to create a 12 foot rear yard setback to align with variances granted for the parcel to the west and' also Planning Board suggested a 30 foot wide buffer on the eastern property line to mitigate impact on neighbors. This also requires site plan approval from the Planning Board. The, proposed lot coverage is 29.05% where the code permits a maximum of 30%. The lot is .219 acres or 9541 square feet. Are those all accurate? BILL KELLY : Those are all accurate except as far as the statements from the Planning Board those were made prior to our work session and then after the work session now we are I don't know that you've received any comments from them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We haven't received additional comments we will request them. BILL KELLY : Ok cause the work session is informal and that was the discussion that we had and they said that in the case of the front yard setback and rear yard setback they were deferring to the Zoning Board and then or average front yard setback our closest front yard setback is 10.2 feet but our average front yard setback is 14 feet 9 inches. MEMBER HORNING : Leslie didn't the Planning Board comment on the size of the building also? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. They made comments about the possibility of making a smaller building in order to meet the setbacks and also a buffer and also the possibility of reorienting the building in a different way which is why in fact we said go ahead and go before them and see what they say. Did they discuss that at all? BILL KELLY : Yea all those comments were prior to our work session and again at the work session it pretty much boiled down to the rear yard setback and then there was conversation about the buffer area. Nothing definitive has been determined because if we come before the Board here and we get a 5 foot rear yard setback then that's they were willing to go along with that so if the ZBA was to approve the 5 rear yard setback then they would go along with that. May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'll request additional comments from them to bring us up to date on what sort of conversation you've had. BILL KELLY : And then on the you know the property to the west which is Lewis Marine there's a couple locations along Lewis Marine's rear yard where they're closer than the 10 feet or the 12 feet. Now on average there are a couple of locations where they're closer than that. Now the front yard their front yard their closest location on the front yard is actually 8 feet where our closest location on the front is 10.2 feet. And the only reason I say that is because Lewis Marine Light Industrial property and as far as you know the length of their building fronting Corwin Street of course is you can tell is well over 60 feet and then what I did is I got the GIS maps that show all the properties and the outline of all the properties and I have those for you along with just a list of facts and all I want to do is hand that over to the Board so they have that for reference based on some of the conversation that might take place here today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's begin before we yea I'm going to take a look at this. BILL KELLY Let me make one more comment. You know the whole that whole area all the lots in that area are non -conforming lots and every lot in that area has a non -conforming situation. I went through and I checked them all so they all have non -conforming situations. Some of them might be pre-existing and anything if they weren't pre-existing they would of required you know to come before the Zoning Board to get those approvals so that being said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a question actually. On the survey that we have in front of us on the subject property there's something called out as part of 7th Street. What does that mean? BILL KELLY : That was a question that the Planning Board had proposed in their comments to you and they just wanted to confirm that that part of 7th Street had been adjoined . That part of 7th Street was abandoned and we had to come up with documentation to prove that it actually had been abandoned and that part of 7th Street had been adjoined to the subject parcel and that is the case and there are covenants filed in the County Clerk's Office and attached to that property that did take place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay cause it's a strange anomalous situation so I thought I'd better clarify what that means. BILL KELLY : Yea that has been cleared up and that definitely has been adjoined. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The surveyor stamped these drawings so 13 May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we'll take a look at these facts that you've submitted to us. Now, before you know the Board starts asking questions and so on I think in fairness to the audience we should hear from them. There are a number of neighbors here that have concerns about additional industrial activity within their, what is essentially residential neighborhood. There was one comment that I just want the folks in the audience to understand we did receive in one letter a request to rezone the property to residential which is more in conformance with the general tone of the larger area. The Zoning Board does not have the authority to do that. Zoning is a function of the Town Board and the Planning Department. We grant relief from zoning codes when justified okay but there's nothing we can do to change the fact that that property is zoned light industrial, our Board. There are certain uses permitted in a light industrial zone and what is before our Board is if this building had come in with conforming setbacks which with a building this size they cannot do on such a small piece of property. They wouldn't be before us. They would actually of, been able to build it as of right with a building permit because it is a permitted use okay so I just wanted everyone to be on the same page and to kind of understand that as we move forward. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I just say something. When you refer to the size of the property you're referring mainly to the width of the property. The size is pretty conforming in reference to its overall area is it not? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN.: I'm not sure what you mean is it MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'm saying I mean we're dealing with depth here based upon setbacks front yard and rear yard so you're really referring to that aspect of it aren't you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh well also even lot coverage I mean it doesn't it conforms to lot coverage by like that much. BILL KELLY : But it conforms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Pardon. BILL KELLY : But it conforms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it conforms yea no I'm saying that it's basically the size of the building's footprint 30% is permitted this is just a tad under 30%. Otherwise it would be in the Notice of Disapproval for a variance. So primarily what's before us is the length of the building okay. It's proposed at 70 code permits 60 and the front and rear yard setbacks. Now having said that I'd like to hear from neighbors so that your concerns can be put into the record and the applicant will have an opportunity to address them alright. Now the one thing I would ask is if someone says something and you agree with it how about you just raise your hand rather than s.4 May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting get up there to repeat it again and again and again alright. That way we'll understand what the consensus is and what the feeling is so whoever would like to go first please step to the microphone and state and spell your name. JAMES KENNEDY: How are you my name is James Kennedy. I'm at. 620 Corwin Street. So you've seen me before. We were here last month. It was suggested that we try to do some community outreach so we could document everybody's concerns so I think we're essentially doing that here. When we spoke last month there was going to be a working meeting I thought we were going to get notices on that we haven't well not the working meeting but there would be a Planning Board meeting so there was going to be you know a display that we would be able to see what the final results of that Planning Board meeting were so just kind of curious that we never got any kind of notice on that so I guess essentially we're still involved in the process here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Planning Board work session they just give you public notice it's in the paper they tell you what they're going to talk about. I don't think they've gotten to the point where there's you know anything is there anything Bill other than what you've submitted to us that's before the Planning Board? BILL KELLY : The. Planning Board work session which we attended that's really not open for public comment that's public comments taken at the Planning Board hearing. Now that Public Hearing hasn't taken place yet and that would be advertised and posted on the property as to the date and time that that would take place, 7 days prior. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We sent them to the Planning Board because when site plan approval is also required and variance relief is being requested the Board doesn't necessarily we want it for the benefit of the property owners and for the benefit of both Boards it wouldn't be prudent if we granted certain setbacks that then tied up the hands of the applicant and the Planning Board because they decided to move the building this way or that way because of traffic and curb cuts and parking and, so on or buffers and then you see what happens then their stuck with these setbacks and it doesn't work very well for the property owner. They may have to come back to us to get amendments to,what we've granted so we try to go back and forth until everyone has the sort of same set of drawings and we understand what is going to be the best possible solution alright. It just works better. It's coordinating government agencies and it's better for everybody. So`that's why they were talking to them first but please carry on and say whatever you'd like us to know. JAMES KENNEDY : You know really and I think everybody else that's going to talk is going to say that it's just the change in the essential character of the neighborhood. It just flat out doesn't belong you know it's all residential here. We've got documentation where we go back into the May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting 1950's to see when the zoning was established there you know further research into all of the I guess you call them by laws of the Town of Southold and what the purpose of the Zoning Board is you know Chapter 280 explains all .the purposes of the Zoning Board and there's a line item in there that provides for you know revisiting what the zoning is there. We truly believe that the zoning does not it's not it shouldn't be light industrial there it's just flat out shouldn't be. I understand that it's not the Zoning Board that it's actually the Town of Southold so you know we'll go down that road and see what we can do to affect the change there but essentially that's what I just wanted to repeat some things that were said you know back in April. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you had the opportunity assuming that this sort of use is permitted on that property at this point if you had the opportunity to say these are the things that we would Like in our neighborhood to try and ensure the safety of our children and the visual appearance of our community on that property assuming that it. can have some sort of contractors yard there what would those things be? JAMES KENNEDY: I don't think I have anything in my head that would move towards that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there might someone else in the audience who does. JAMES KENNEDY : Yea and also just the you know I have a certain value I can assign to my home. When this happens it's going to go way down you know way down. I can't sell that house and get what I could now*if this building is going to sit on that property so that's something I'm very disappointed about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anyone else? MEMBER HORNING : I would like to know his address I didn't catch it. JAMES KENNEDY : 620 Corwin Street. I actually share the same address as this building. I'm not sure MEMBER HORNING : That's what I was wondering about the same address as the applicant. JAMES KENNEDY: It's kind of odd. MEMBER HORNING : Sir could you tell us you mentioned doing history on the area and zoning do you know when it was zoned light industrial? JAMES KENNEDY: I think Susan has some CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry you have to go up to a mic state your name and then speak into the mic for us please. May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : If someone can run through the zoning for us that would be nice in the neighborhood. SUSAN SMITH : My name is Susan Smith. I live at 432 Seventh Street adjacent to the site we're talking about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do have a letter in the file from you. SUSAN SMITH : Right. I actually also have .here a petition from 23 neighbors and many people couldn't be here today who are older or who ,are at work so just want you to know that the whole neighborhood feels very passionate about this intended change and I have here well you probably know that the zoning rules were adopted in '57 and amended in '71 which was a very different time in the history of Southold and Greenport and I think probably people were more concerned about bringing commerce in at thatpoint it was a less established neighborhood but as it turns out our neighborhood is very residential and we're very concerned. We have a lot of children on the block who visit each other's houses who go to school you know without supervision because it's very safe. Now with this proposed building we're going to have a very dominant quite tall building in our neighborhood. It's going to change the nature of it's going to be an eyesore for all of us but.it's also going to change the nature of the way we live on the streets with children playing and we're going to have trucks we're going to have cherry pickers we're going to have them parked. We're going to have them going up and down these very, very quiet blocks and it definitely all of our properties will depreciate because nobody moves to this you know lovely part of the world to have you know a big industrial building as your neighbor. So you know it's I realize it is zoned for light industrial but it's sort of at the apex of you know this land whether it should be at this stage light industrial. I know that's not your jurisdiction but whether it should continue to be that you know it's unsuitable to the neighborhood to how we live and to where we live. It's unfathomable really that this might be our neighbor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How has the other business worked within the area? SUSAN SMITH : The other business came in in '73 which was a completely different time possibly you know if it were making an application now it would be a different result but in fact you know as it turns out the buildings are low much lower than the proposed building here and they have a bigger much bigger plot of land that their buildings are built on. This is a tiny plot you know'and in fact you know I know that people applied to have domestic buildings on it but couldn't because of those zoning laws but would have been more suitable to the neighborhood and are less oppressive to the neighbors. So the building the business that's there at the moment they you know does very little traffic that's involved in that building. They've been very respectful of us. They have low buildings. It's been there for over 40 years.. It's a very May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting different time, very different business you know. Mr. Kennedy here has the same kind of business. He knows what's going to be involved with the traffic that will be coming in with the you know office stuff, the traffic, the builders you know what is going to be involved in a commercial business of this nature. It's just unsuitable for this neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anyone else who would like to SUSAN SMITH : I just like to give you I have a couple of pictures I know that you may or may not be familiar with the plot. This is my house, this is just the neighborhood. .CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so that you are all aware every application that's before the Zoning Board does receive a personal inspection by every board member. Each one of us goes out to every single sight and observes what the character of the neighborhood is cause that's one of the standards that we have to apply in granting variance relief. We look at potential environmental impacts, we look at the size of the variance, we look at whether something could happened without variance relief on the property those are the kinds of standards that we have to look at. So we've all we're very familiar with the neighborhood so you know. URAL TALGAT : Hi my name is Ural Talgat. I've been in front of the ,Board many times I'm sure you might know me. I'm an architect. I'm a landscape architect and I hold a Masters in urban planning. I live three doors down from the subject parcel and I moved in bought my property in 19 1 believe it was 86 somewhere around there. I've been there for a while. I've seen the neighborhood change but it's always been residential. One of the questions that you've had before a couple of minutes before was how that existing business operates with us and that's a. warehouse situation. There are trucks that deliver go back and forth but luckily none of them come down our street, 7th Street at least my street and a lot of the trucks use I believe it's 9th Street to go back and forth and that's a good thing for us because then our street becomes nice and quiet. There are several homeowners here that have young children. They've just moved into the neighborhood. I believe theres some grandchildren who are basically running around after school. Those kids go back and forth. The school is two blocks away that's one of the reasons why I chose to buy where I did. The school is right there. It's a very safe neighborhood. I was.very happy when I purchased my house and made my home there. I could of moved somewhere else but I decided to stay there cause I like the neighborhood. Zoning, talking about zoning, the history of zoning. When zoning was established in this Town just because there was a building there that was light industrial or industrial along the train tracks -that established that zone. I just completed a train trip from San Francisco to New York. It took me four days. I was watching looking out I wanted to see America. One of the things I've noticed was usually the train tracks are places where it's not that great to live near. A lot of businesses end up there but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. I'm sure you've taken a train trip from our train May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting here in Southold Town to NYC. I'm sure you've seen the businesses that are there, the homes that are there. These businesses are a by-product of the train tracks. The residential neighborhoods are by-products but what do we want it to be is more of the question. I've also taken the train to my friend's house in New Jersey. Now getting on LIRR and then going over to New Jersey transit and going through that experience was a total wake up call for me as an architect. When you take the two trains Long. Island was established with a lot of businesses along the train tracks. You go to New Jersey my God 'it's more residential, more humanistic not just a by-product let's put a business and squeeze it in there. I don't want to talk about that aspect of it but it's the history of the development along train tracks I think is really key. We have a neighborhood. Our neighborhood is very concise. You can see our group here. We're very tight and we want to keep it that way. We don't like trucks going up and down the street and endangering the lives of children or not caring. I planted a Yoshino cherry tree on right along the street there. I can't tell you how many times these large trucks have come in and basically chopped off the branches. When they have two trucks passing by one another they come really close. Our street is already tight enough and when you have a UPS delivery and when you have another delivery of another truck it's really disastrous in terms of our neighborhood. That was another point. I believe in terms I'm an architect I go in front of the Board here to get projects passed. I know what it takes. As of right he can build what he wants to build but you do not have to give him the request that he's asking for in terms of side yard. You could also keep it at a minimum in terms of the density. Fine right now it's at 30% in terms of density keeping it below there but not granting the side yard request or the front yard request that he's wanting. I think keeping the density down low would help. Also, the height. My God, 30 feet high into the air. I haven't seen the project. I'm just speaking from what people have said to me what this building can look like. I believe they can build up to 30 feet or I don't remember CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 35 URAL TALGAT : 35 feet in terms of height and I don't think any of our structures there in terms of that height is there and I think the Board should really consider this carefully to grant this variance. I think they should build it out of right. If they want to build it out of right they bought the piece of property thinking they could build something bigger but again it's affecting our lives and it will affect our lives for our future. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know that the Board has the right to require anybody to do more than what the code allows. them to do. URAL TALGAT : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Less than I'm sorry less than what the code May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting URAL TALGAT : But again they're here asking for a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're here for the length of the building for the front yard setback and the rear yard setback it's not a side yard. URAL TALGAT : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN They have a long skinny lot. So just to be clear. URAL TALGAT Right and they're here for asking for that variance and I'm opposed to that. The one other thing that I think the Board should consider and the Town should consider as I said I took a train trip from San Francisco all the way to New York: Our Main Road our North Road we've estab.lished it as a scenic byway why can't we do the same thing along the train tracks? Those train tracks people like me people like our guests that come out here in the summer time see the properties and that is very important in terms of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that is something you need to be arguing before the Town Board. It has nothing to do with the variance URAL TALGAT : I understand that I understand that but the Zoning Board you have the right to either grant the variance or not grant the variance and I'm asking the Board for your not granting the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood. URAL TALGAT: Thank you very much. NADIRA VLAUN : Good morning Nadira Vlaun at 440 Seventh Street and my husband who is not here Christian' Iglesias. We're probably the newest members of the neighborhood. We moved in last July. We have two children a 7 year old and a 10 year old who attend Greenport School. The house was very attractive to us because we were in such close proximity to the school and now having gone through almost an entire school year I work from home so I'm able to see the patterns of the neighborhood and the children. There's tons of children who walk to school and use part of the end of 7th St. to cross over to the crossing guard both high school all the way down to elementary, kindergarten and preschool. The neighborhood is just so beautiful to and I feel very comfortable with allowing my children to ride their bikes down 7th St. to Corwin Street very beautiful neighbors all looking out for each other. It just has a quality that you want as a parent with children and I really feel like no building industrial building is suitable for that neighborhood whatever just it would disrupt everything especially the safety of the children going to school. I would imagine that the trucks going down 7th Street would go all the way to Main St. and from Wiggins St. to Main St. that's a huge traffic area for walking children 20 May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting going to cross over to the school. That is my biggest concern is the safety I mean I even feel like now just having learned the patterns that Wiggins St. should have stop signs at the two other streets. At 8th and 9th right now the nearest stop sign is 7th a four way stop sign there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If I may let me ask those of you in the audience then I'd really like the applicant to have a chance to address some of the comments. It sounds to me as though you have two major concerns. One is the safety of children and the other is the visual impact of this structure. How many of you would agree with that? Hold it you can't speak unless you are in front of the mic. I'd be happy to hear what you want to say but you have to be at the microphone. NADIRA VLAUN : And the devaluation of the homes that's also a big CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is -an assumption that you're all making because the only way the Board can confirm that is if you get appraisals. If you actually get certified appraisals on a potential impact then we can accept that but until such time as documentation from an absolute expert in real estate is before us that is not the basis upon which this Board can make a determination. I do appreciate what you're saying because in general I think common sense would dictate that in fact if it's a residential neighborhood and suddenly you have a large you know business in it that it will have some impact but just I just want to be fair all the way around and accurate. What I'd like to do is ask the applicant's agent and or the applicant to make some comments about potential traffic impacts, circulation of trucks, number of trucks and so on and anything that might be done to mitigate to support the safety of children in that neighborhood from your point of view and also about the size of the building that you're proposing because clearly the neighbors feel this is way too big a building on a small lot. So please make comments to the Board. ROBERT HARVEY : Robert Harvey 441 Seventh St. My biggest concern is, is this going to be an 8 to 5 operation or 24 hour with emergencies. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on I'm sorry you're a neighbor you're not the applicant? ROBERT HARVEY Yes I'm a neighbor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, okay let's let you make your comment and then we'll have the applicant speak go ahead. ROBERT HARVEY : Is it going to be like a daily business? In other words is it going to be 8 to 5 or there's going to be trucks going out like at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning? Large trucks at any time? We don't know what's going to happen at that point. 21 May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The applicant did address that at the previous hearing but I'll ask them to comment about that again. GEORGE CAPON : Morning my name is George Capon. I live on 509 Seventh St. I've been living there oh getting back there we just had a rescue home and I left home without my hearing aid so I can't hear nothing what you people are saying but I live on 509 Seventh St. in Greenport. I've been living there for 57 years and when I first moved there were hardly ever see any trucks or anything there and since East End supplies truck came they had delivery come maybe 4 or 5 times, a day and they come down 7th St. all the time. Seventh St. and 8th St. is not a full street. It's like a dead end street so everybody usually come out from cardboard city they come down Wiggins St. and head toward the village and 7th St. cannot take big trucks coming through here. (inaudible) got a lot of small kids that live on our street a lot of people that is almost disabled go across the street. There's more school kids come across the street and hit 7th St. head up toward South St. from 6th St. and like that and we just cannot handle these big trucks coming here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'm going to ask the applicant now to speak. Alright we heard you. I'm going to ask the applicant to speak now. BILL KELLY : I submitted a letter along with those GIS maps that address a lot of these concerns and I understand a couple of things that keep coming up is the kids that are you know going to school and I think when you look at the GIS map the main thing about that map it just shows you everything and it shows the fact that we're on the south end of 7th St. The farthest away from the school as you can possibly be so any kids that are traveling to school are going to be traveling north on 7th St. and of course in order to get to school they have to cross Wiggins St. Wiggins St. is the thoroughfare to the ferry South Ferry it's actually on 6th St. There's a sign on Route 25 that gives you directions to the ferry to go down 6th St. to Wiggins St. turn left on Wiggins St. and go to the ferry. So as far as that traffic situation there's traffic there because of the ferry. And again as far as the children, the children are traveling north on 7th St. to go to school which is on the north side of Route 25 so you know there's a lot of traffic on Route 25 that would be of concern as well as maybe 7th St. As far as what I understand all traffic to Corwin St. to the industrial area of Corwin St. is supposed to come down 8th St. and then travel on Corwin St. so that would address that issue. You know as far as the building goes the height of the building is actually 23 feet so whoever is saying 30 or some odd feet the reality of it is it's 23 feet. If it was'it's allowed a maximum of 35 feet to the midpoint of the gable that's just not the case. If it was a residence it could be 35 feet to the midpoint of the gable even as a commercial building it can be 35 feet to the midpoint of the gable. That's not the case it's actually 23.5 feet to the peak of the roof so just to clarify that and then again if it was a residence you know usually when I've been before the Board what you always take a look at is May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting the area around and say the average setbacks of existing properties. So when you go down 7th St. I put a scale on that map and if you were to scale it out basically an 8th of an inch equals 6.6 feet you can see that probably there's probably not one house on 7th St. there might be one that's greater than 10 feet off the front yard line. Most of them are in a proximity somewhere between 3 to 8 feet off of the front yard. Also if you take a look at that map and you use the scale you start to see that probably three to four of those properties are over in lot coverage density and then the other thing is as far as Lewis Marine, Lewis Marine's lot coverage density is 46% so their lot coverage density is greater than what we're proposing. The height of their buildings are somewhat in the neighborhood of what we're proposing. So we're not going to be taller than what Lewis Marine is or we're going to be in the same proximity of height. As far as the architecture and design of the building you know it's always one of those cases where beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There's a style there's an industrial style that's in vogue right now. We do a lot of industrial style residential buildings so this could very easily be an industrial style residential building on this property and more than likely we would get the variances for the size of building we're proposing and for residential style industrial building on this property only because all the other properties in the neighborhood would have had been granted the same relief because of their proximity to side yard lines, rear yard lines and the property that's directly across from our property in order to build anything on that lot because it has two front yards they would probably be in front of the Board for relief. Currently on that property it's a property that all it has on it appears to be is an accessory structure so we have an accessory structure without a primary structure but I think that was the case with a pre- existing condition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know what year Lewis Marine received variance relief? BILL KELLY : 1993 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm gonna have to get a copy of BILL KELLY : So the current code would be in effect the code that we have now was in effect at that time. The code that we have now was adopted as far as non -conforming use code was adopted in 1989. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With regard to the use of did you say 9th St. BILL KELLY : Eighth St. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eighth St. Where how do you conclude that BILL KELLY : I don't conclude that. It's what we've been told. We've been told that 8th St. is supposed that the traffic the industrial traffic is supposed to come down 8th St. IN May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that might have to do with the fact that 8th St. is where Lewis Marine terminates. BILL KELLY : Yea yeah. And that's all that we've been told. Now the thing is there was one question that was asked as far as the time of use of the building. It would basically be 8 to 5. It's not a large contractor facility. It's a facility that's going to have maybe 3 to 4 guys working out of it and a secretary so the parking requirement we've reduced that we had a reduction in the parking requirement based on the number of employees and the number we're going for is 4. So we have 4 employees coming in somewhere between 7 and 8 in the morning normal work hours when people are leaving and going to work and then as far as traffic going out they go out in the morning and they come back at the end of the day. It's not a supply store. It's a contractors store it's an individual contractor it's not multiple contractors. MEMBER DANTES : Will they be working on weekends? BILL KELLY : That would be FRED FRAGOLA : Hi my name is Fred Fragola I'm the owner of Lowelle Electric and I'm th.e applicant. Most of our work is 9 to 5 Monday through Friday. Occasionally they'll be Saturday work but generally speaking we're pretty much Monday through Friday. I just want to clarify something else I do not plan to have, a secretary work in there. This building is attended in the morning half the trucks come home at the end of the day. The other trucks don't come. It's approximately 3 trucks that'll be running out of there. The work schedule that we have here is that we come in in the morning we get out in the morning we don't stay in the building it's just not how we operate. That building is designed to warehouse my bucket truck, my trenches and my trailers so there was concerns about large trucks. Twenty five hundred series of the vehicles that we have GMC vehicles and sprinters they're not large. The bucket truck is a Dodge 2001 I'm gonna say about 8000 miles on that. That truck maybe runs once a month maybe once every other month so there's not these large vehicles that everybody's concerned about. Supply houses, Schwing electric is our supply house that delivers most of our material. They do come once a day a regular box truck so that's probably the only vehicle that's large and it's an event there and Schwing is a pretty accommodating company. If we mandate whether it's 8th or 9th they're gonna comply to whatever it is to make sure they come in a certain way and don't cause any issues. They're in and out 5 or 10 minutes unloading and they're done. Thank you. URAL TALGAT : Again my name is Ural Talgat I'd like to speak again if I may. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Briefly yea sure. URAL TALGAT : Breifly. Again they mentioned their work hours from 9 to 5 well kids go to school between 8 and 9 to 9:30. They get out of school around 3 o'clock. They're on the street us May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting between 3 and 5, 6 and 7 so their operating their heavy trucks back and forth doesn't matter if it's a heavy truck it could be a regular delivery truck. They're operating when kids are going to school and coming back from school. This is a health safety issue. Thank you. SUSAN SMITH : Hello I'm Susan Smith. Just because there is a light industrial building doesn't mean that this tiny lot should become you know we should increase the commercial business on this tiny lot which is an even smaller lot and I just want to say the property that I'm sorry I don't know your name was talking about as having a double lot you know and we'd need a zoning code would need a variance in order to build there it's my property and when I would have no intention of putting an unsuitable building on that property and you know this is just you know it is unsuitable for the neighborhood. It's just not suitable so it's just you know unfair that we should be even having to deal with this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as you can see this is quite a challenge because ultimately what a Zoning Board does is by State law balancing we have a balancing test. We have to balance the reasonable rights of property owners with the general welfare of the community. That's what our job is in a nutshell. It's not an easy job as you can see. Everyone's concerns will be taken into consideration seriously including the applicant's right to do some business on that property unless it was zoned residential. It's not and we can't do anything about the zoning. We can't take away somebody's property rights. We can limit what they do on the property. FRED FRAGOLA : I want to clarify CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just state your name again sir. FRED FRAGOLA : Fred Fragola the owner of Lowelle Electric the applicant. I want to clarify the travel into the building. We come in the morning 7 o'clock quarter to 7 we're out a quarter after 7, 7:30 that's the impact to the facility of the neighborhood. The trucks come back whether it's one or two trucks that come back it may only be two vehicles because the other fellow takes the truck home. They come back between the hours of 4 or 5. Granted I understand the concern with children. I have kids I got all that. The supply house delivers before 12 o'clock so the event of a large truck that you're concerned about whether it's 8th Ave. or 9th coming down there happy to comply to that does not affect anybody as far as the children are out of school make it very very clear that's delivery time they would attend my shop. So the only issue that we have is 2 to 3 vehicles leaving at the end of the day. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you a question. You say you have kids okay obviously you live in a residential neighborhood and I'm sure you can appreciate some of these neighbor's concerns about an industrial building in their neighborhood if it were to be across the street from your house. What kinds of things would you consider doing what kinds of things could we In May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting do to lessen the impact of this building which although -properly zoned for that use is essentially an anomaly within what is otherwise a residential neighborhood? FRED FRAGOLA : Let me see if I understand your question. Are we talking about the cosmetics of the building or are we talking about vehicle traffic? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we're talking about two things. The traffic is one which I think you've already talked about right which has to do with hours of operation and the number of vehicles and so on. I'm talking about I'm not talking about designing the aesthetic appearance of the building so that it looks like a house. I'm talking about the possibility of a maintained in perpetuity an evergreen landscape buffer along the front yard which would grow like Leyland cypress or something that would grow large enough to actually reduce the appearance or even knowing that the building was present. If the building is 23 feet high and Leyland cypress grow very quickly and okay we have before us now was this submitted to the Planning Board? BILL KELLY: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well can you call out (inaudible) typical shrub planting details well this isn't going to provide. What the applicant is already considering in this plan is some sort of landscaping okay. I don't know that this is the final thing or that particularly addresses complete screening of the property cause it's not called out. There's a couple of tree planting details juniper, Cupressus Hinoki that's a nice tree but that's not gonna (inaudible) Zelkova serrata well these can certainly be changed. BILL KELLY : Yea. I mean I gave that to you but on the other we're still in the Planning process and this is you know part of the Planning process is to submit a landscape plan. It's not part of the Zoning Board process so but just to help provide additional information and then you know the letter that I submitted with the GIS map I think that really addresses a lot of the concerns here and points out to the Board itself that you know 6th St. and Wiggins St. is a busy street because of the ferry and everybody keeps pointing to Corwin St. where we're at which is a long way away from Wiggins St. not a long way away but it's that distance it's at the south end it's on the railroad tracks on the south side of the railroad tracks on 6th St. you have Greenport village highway department. You also have the Costello Marine so just in the same line down the tracks you have Lewis Marine, you have potentially ADF Ventures and then you have the Highway Department for the village and then you have Costello Marine so it's boom, boom, boom, right down the tracks. So it's not out of character for that area and we don't we shouldn't even have to defend that because it's zoned properly for what we want to do and it's like I said it's not out of character. The letter that I submitted and then I'm going to step down and with no more comments. sm May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like to ask you something. What is the minimum size building the minimum size building? BILL KELLY : That's not a question that I would be able to answer. That might be a question that Fred can answer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because I recall I reread the transcript from the previous hearing before I came in to today just to see exactly to remind myself what was in the record and I believe sir that I'm referring to the applicant that you talked about a usable building but usable is a very vague term and so I would like to explore the possibility of an amended application with a smaller building on that property and I'd like to hear your comments about it. SUSAN SMITH : Susan Smith again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One second I'm going to ask him too. FRED FRAGOLA : When you say a smaller building I have to assume we're talking about the square footage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yea. FRED FRAGOLA: Not the height. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not the height. FRED FRAGOLA : Okay alright one of the concerns that I had about this building is that the bucket truck has an overall length of 30 feet plus the trailer that's hooked up to it, it's normally another 20 to 25 feet so you got about 50 to 60 feet when you put these two pieces of equipment together. I'm not looking to park the trucks on the outside. I'm looking for everything to be in the building. That's one of the reasons I selected the length of this building to pull it in there so I can back it in in such a way that it's out of sight, cosmetically pleasing cause you don't see it. I've had events over the years where I leave vehicles outside and my vehicles have been broken into vandalized, robbed etc. etc. What I was looking to do was keep put everything inside the building. I don't want anything outside the building. The reason I'm pushing the building back to the railroad tracks is that I want to heavy vegetate that. Put up a 6 foot high chain link fence and stop whatever type of people that are walking down the railroad tracks and come down Corwin. So what I'm doing is I'm actually protecting the neighborhood. I'm going to block off normally whatever the length of the property is so if anybody that can come through the railroad tracks has to enter through Lewis Marina. The other point is to down size this building ultimately then what I'm going to do is put the trucks outside if I have to 27 May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting shrink it down and that's never been my intent as I said in the prior hearing everything is to go inside the, building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You couldn't do that in a conforming 60 foot length? FRED FRAGOLA : I didn't say I couldn't. I was explaining the length. To answer your question I could never make a response this quickly. I would have to sit down scale it out measure it out see what I can really do if I you know would shrink the building down so I'm happy to look but I'm explaining my reasons here. If the building becomes smaller well then you restrict the application of putting the vehicles inside. BILL KELLY : Before you go to Susan I just want to make one more comment on the size of the building. As far as most of the concerns here don't really have anything to do with the building as much as it has to do with the traffic. I don't know if that's the settling point. I think one of the things that you asked earlier is there anything we can do to alleviate some of their concerns and if some of their concerns are the appearance of having vehicles parked outside of the building I think that was just addressed. So that those large trucks CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I do think I respectfully suggest that I think that the size of that building is of concern to this neighborhood. SUSAN SMITH : I'd just like to say there is no building that can conform on that tiny lot. It's just not made for a big industrial building and I would also say that as far as Mr. Kennedy and myself are concerned we will be seeing this building and we will be feeling the impact of it. It's not like we're not going to be seeing it as you suggested and then the other thing that you brought up earlier about taking a look at the whole you know the whole neighborhood and nit picking about which house built in 1930 doesn't conform to the code which is probably many of them but if you're taking a look at that whole neighborhood you'll see that the whole neighborhood is domestic and yes the houses that don't conform to the code that was introduced in the 70's and if you are putting up a little house that were allowed to do it you know you probably none of us would object to that. This is out of character. What we're rejecting to you is not simply the traffic or even the building you know omnipresent as it's going to be it's also that you're going to be changing the feel of our neighborhood you know and you will you know will be benefiting from it I'm sure that we will all be losing because of it. All our houses will depreciate in value and the way we live on those blocks will have to change so you know I mean I really hope the Board will take that into, considerations. It's not even just is it conforming in this is it doing that it's changing the nature of the blocks on which we live for one persons or one companies advantage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting DEBRA REVA : My name is Debra Reva and I live at 433 Sixth St. I just want to make one comment and it failed to me that the applicant and his representative had suggested that the children and the traffic was all taken care of and it felt a little too cavalier for me. This is a neighborhood with kids who go to school in the morning come home in the afternoon and they are playing in the street. I don't think the trucks are going to stop working during the summer when the kids are off so I just want to make a statement that we can't be cavalier about our neighborhood and about how people interact and live on the street and walk their dogs and have their kids play and not be affected by trucks going back and forth whether it's in the morning or in the afternoon or deliveries during the day. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I'm going to I'm going. to.ask the unless you have I see you want to get up to say something. Unless you have something different to say of what was already said the Board has many many other applications today and I'm going to have to start to limit the comments at this point. ROSEMARY GABRIEL : Hello my name is Rosemary Gabriel. I live at 431 Seventh St. My house was built in 1910 so I am positive the setbacks were not what they are today but we love our old house. I'm very concerned with the aesthetics and with the visual. The gentleman talked about a 6 foot high chain linked fence. Is that going to be around the whole property? Is that what we're going to be looking at when this building is built? It's important to us to have an aesthetic visual feeling of our old fashioned block and a 6 foot tall chain link fence I don't know are there going to be security flood lights? Are there going to be dogs? What is the security situation excuse me I'm not used to speaking publicly. What is the security plan for this building regardless of what size it is? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I will ask the applicant to address that and then I'm going to see if the Board has any questions. BILL KELLY : Two things, the chain link fence is in the rear yard along the railroad tracks. That's the only place there would be a chain link fence and.it's going to be vegetated. What would be on the north side of the chain link fence which when vegetated would not be visible from Corwin St. Then the other part of that is I'm sure most of these people moved into this area prior to Lewis or after Lewis Marine existed. Lewis Marine encompasses that whole street except for that small lot that we have so Lewis Marine changed the character of that area long before we did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just want to say one thing I think that there's a positive step in reference to screening this building and the other key issue is that it's not a retail operation. But am May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting I think you really can do a better job screening the building no matter what the size of the building is and that you're probably going to get back to us on because once and whatever way in means that and I've seen you build some pretty cool stuff I have to tell you I'm referring to the builder here we of course can't dictate that that's pretty much done with Planning and quite honestly the more screening the better to take that entire view of an industrial building away along with whatever you deal with the Planning Board. BILL KELLY : We're not opposed to that and that would be one of the things and as we go through the Planning process that's going to come up and as we go through the Planning process we'll develop that landscape plan to the point where you know the building will be predominately screened. I mean again the beauty is in the eye of the beholder according to the owner it's not your typical tin can building. Its got some architectural features added to it. Nobody here has seen the architectural plans for that. That's not part of the Zoning Board process. That is part of the Planning process and that's part of the Architectural Review Board process. So and those items are yet to take place and that's going to take place in the Planning process. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And as long as that screening is taken care of through a drip system you know and it's easy to maintain screening than it is to a lawn so I mean let's be honest. BILL KELLY : And that's our requirements of the Planning Board application and those will be addressed at that level. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank you. MEMBER DAN.TES : You also said lighting will be addressed by the Planning Board as well. t BILL KELLY : Oh yeah as far as lighting goes just to address that a little bit. By code the lighting can't be above 12 feet above the ground so all lighting has to be at 12 feet all lighting has to be down lit you know they have dark sky lighting requirement the Town of Southold so that's all addressed by the Planning Board cut sheets and everything have been already provided to the Planning Board. We have a full application into the Planning Board and just so that everybody understands that we have submitted an application to the Planning Board. We have attended one work session. As the property develops eventually there will be a public hearing and everybody will be notified of that public hearing seven days in advance by certified mail as well as by posting on the property. So that's and that meeting you get to see the full set of plans. It's posted out here it's available at the Planning Board office and then you can make comments .at that meeting and then you know they don't approve us at that meeting. They take public comment and then we'll have another work session and work through the public comments as well as you know our comments and what we think is you know good and right for us. May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : There won't be a dog in the yard? BILL KELLY : No. There's a chain link fence on the rear yard there's no chain link fence around the whole property just on the rear yard to protect the rear of. the property I mean granted if anybody wants to get in there they can get in there but it's to protect the rear of the property from people traveling down the railroad tracks to come in from the rear side. And to a certain degree I mean you've all visited the property you understand there's a lot if dumping that's been going on on the property. Where that comes from who knows. People going down the tracks there might be kids partying in there you know that's all speculation. I don't know but there's a lot of trash on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well 6 foot high fence is permitted only in the rear and side yard. Nothing from the front of the building. forward. Just so you know. BILL KELLY : And there's a stockade you know the property directly across the street has a 6 foot stockade fence on Corwin St. The property at the end of Corwin has a 6 foot stockade fence so mean. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board have any questions or comments? MEMBER HORNING : I have a question for ourselves. Are we getting an updated memo from the Planning Board? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I was not going to I was going to propose to adjourn to the Special Meeting. I don't think we're ready to close. I want to get additional comments from the Planning Board you know based on their work session and I want to give anybody else having heard what was talked about today an opportunity to submit anything else to the Board including the applicant. If the applicant is interested considering an amended application that's something you should look at and talk about. The applicant did say you know you would take a look at more conforming building proposal as an option and I want to give you an opportunity to do that and we'll see where we are. What this means is that if the rest of the Board is willing we will adjourn this to two weeks which is the Special Meeting that's in the evening. We won't be taking it's not a public hearing. There won't be any testimony. Nobody is going to get to talk. The Board will then decide if it has everything it needs in order to make a decision and if so it will close it and then we will then have 62 days from that date to come up with a decision. Bear in mind that our decisions can include conditions for granting variances. It could be landscape screening it can be a number of things alright the applicant knows that. So the Board will have 62 days. If the Board decides that we need additional time for whatever then it will be adjourned to another date again. If it's adjourned to the June regular meeting then that will be a public situation where the public can come back. I'm just trying to clarify along with Mr. May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting Kelly's explanation with the Planning Board process what the Zoning Board process is so that's where we are with this application at this point. I think we've got lots to think about and I want to reassure everyone that we will do a fair and thorough assessment of this balancing test that the law requires us to do for everybody's sake. Is there anything else you wanted to say Mr. Kennedy? JAMES KENNEDY-: Yea just one quick question and thank you for that. As far as trying to document you know the real estate values you suggested that we get an expert in here, what's the appropriate time for that person and where do we send all of that? I'll collect all of that data. We'll present that to you. We'll show the negative impact, the monetary impact on this event and should that just be mailed into Vicki or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me put it this way. You certainly have every right to do that. Here's the problem though from that point of view in terms of your investment of time and money and all of that. The bottom line is if they come in with a much smaller building with much more conformity then they have the right to build it regardless whether or not it affects your property values. We can't deny them given that zoning. If they come in with something conforming the right to do it okay so I won't say don't bother but I do want you to understand that it will have kind of limited role to play in the things that the Zoning Board does take into consideration. Certainly adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood is one of the things we have to consider and to the extent that you can document I suppose a financially adverse impact then it's relevant. Is that correct? What counsel is pointing out is that a use variance would mean you're changing the use to something that's going to be totally out of character of the neighborhood. They're not proposing that. These are setbacks. These are dimensional variances alright not the use itself and if all of those things could conform they wouldn't be here at all. MEMBER HORNING : Leslie the rear yard requirement is 70 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They can't do it. MEMBER HORNING : They'll need a variance minimum for a rear CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They will but the he bottom line 'is everything in that neighborhood requires variances. All of it was established before the code kicked in so the applicant has documented accurately the fact that despite the difference in -uses the area essentially is riddled with non-conformance okay. Non -conforming setbacks we're talking about. JAMES KENNEDY : Yea so Chapter 280 if you read through that I'll ask the Board to review that everyone and you can go through all of those items and it addresses that too. There's an effort that you guys are tasked with to try to change things, things that happened in the past. Try to ME May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting make them right. The Zoning, light industrial try to make it right. It does not belong light industrial so section CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I only want to say again we cannot do that. The Zoning Board cannot change the use. JAMES KENNEDY : Yea but if you read Chapter 280 it gives you the authority to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. JAMES KENNEDY: Yea I read it. I'm not making that up. A.T.A. KIELY : You need to petition the Town Board for a change of zone. JAMES KENNEDY : Okay. Do I do that as a concerned neighbor or do I do that as a landowner? A.T.A. KIELY : I would suggest you contact an attorney and they'll explain the best way to do that but I'm saying you have a remedy through the Town Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I was trying to say early on. We have no authority to do a change of zone. The Town Board establishes those parameters and that's where you need to argue if you're so inclined to do so that's where you need to take this concern. SUSAN SMITH : But there is no property that can conform with the codes that you have at the moment because it's supposed to be 70 feet back from the building itself is not so there it cannot there's nothing they can build that can conform. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : They can create more conformance than what they're proposing but they cannot conform to setbacks however we also have to look at what the setbacks, are in the neighborhood and the applicant has correctly presented the facts that both the industrial building that's adjacent those buildings as well as residential buildings in the neighborhood also do not conform. Don't forget that stuff was put in place long after buildings were built. SUSAN SMITH : But if we're talking about buildings from 1910, 1920, 1930 and then in light industrial building put into the neighborhood in '73 does that mean that we should continue to put in more buildings that do not conform on smaller plots of land? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that's not what that means. What that means is our job is to create relief from restrictive codes when justified. That's what the Zoning Board does okay. We're put in as a safety valve. For just the reasons you've described because as times change as character of a neighborhood changes you know we have the right to review it to put in some sort of current context okay so I think you all understand what's involved here and I don't think we need to belabor any of this anymore. We've got plenty of testimony and lots to think about. Im May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting Again if any of you want to see anything that's in this file you have the right to come to our office and foil freedom of information act you know the file and we'd be happy to- share anything that's in that file with you alright. I think in fairness we should just simply adjourn this to the Special Meeting so that we can get on with other. Alright so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on May 21St MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6857 — ROCKY LEDGE PARTNERS, LLC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Next application before the Board is for Rocky Ledge Partners, LLC # 6857 this is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-121A and Article III Section 280-13A and the Building Inspector's renewed and amended March 24, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on a building permit application for additions and alterations to an existing accessory garage/second dwelling, at; 1) proposed additions and alterations are not permitted for a non -conforming use, 2) more than one dwelling on a single lot; located at: Off East End Road (aka Clay Point Road)(adj. to West Harbor) Fisher's Island, NY STEPHEN HAM : Good morning Stephen Ham 38 Nugent St. in Southampton for the applicant. have distributed a memorandum which gives the entire argument for our case. The architect is here as well if you have questions as to what's being done. I'll just give a broad brush view. What we're trying to do is bring a dated carriage house up to 21St century standards. It will involve no change in the footprint in fact one little piece that's rather unsightly will be removed May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting from the structure. The exterior renovations will involve some dormer increase size covering over a stairwell that's an exterior stairwell with a front porch. In the interior there it's now a 4 bay garage. One will be abandoned and converted into living space. The overall change in living space it's in the memorandum I have as an exhibit the first and second floor drawings that show what we're doing with living space increase of about 100 square feet. In the second floor and about 200 feet in the first floor which will allow for an expansion of the kitchen and the second floor increase will allow for an expansion of the master bedroom. If you have questions in terms of the more detail Bruce Kinlin who's the architect is in the audience but I think it's fairly straightforward. There's very very minor modest changes that are designed to make the structure more 21St century since it dates from the 1920's. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this structure we should note is a lawfully pre-existing second dwelling on the subject property and no changes to the footprint. It's mostly interior changes that you're really doing. STEPHEN HAM : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's been in existence about 50 years? STEPHEN HAM : We understood it dated from the 1920's so nearly 100 years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions. George? MEMBER HORNING : I was curious about when it was built. The closest you can come is sometime in the 1920's? It sounds about right. STEPEHN HAM : I haven't to be truthful I haven't done independent research but it was the architects opinion and that would date it MEMBER HORNING : I mean the property card doesn't seem to show that. MEMBER HORNING : It hasn't changed hands that many times. STEPHEN HAM : No it's been in the a portion of about 10 years ago a portion of the family bought out another portion of the family. MEMBER HORNING : I think Leslie covered my types of questions. No change in the footprint, minimal exterior changes in terms of a stairwell. STEPHEN HAM : Right it's going to look a lot better than it does now. Aesthetically it's going to look a lot better without really any major alterations. 33 5 May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : When do you think we'll get the official Pre C.O. document? STEPHEN HAM : It's about to be typed. It's being held up they had done some work on the main house and that needed an electrical certificate and that might be one reason why it was held up. I didn't get an updated survey until the end of March and applied for the Pre C.O. at that time but it's ready to be typed literally. MEMBER HORNING : The applicant is intending to continue using it for a like a caretaker? STEPHEN HAM : Yes. It's a year round family that's in there right now who's a caretaker. MEMBER HORNING : No intention of having those move out so they can rent it someone or anything like that? STEPHEN HAM : None at all no. As I point out in the memorandum I know this argument didn't go very far with Mr. Carbone last year but we have three FIDCO lots here. If they were to tear everything down theoretically they can put up three residence in this space so it's non- conforming in a sense that they are using it treating it as a single parcel at present however it's Planning Board has approved and the Health Department have approved three lots on this 3.9 acre parcel not that they're ever going to really do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from anybody else? MEMBER DANTES : I was just going to say that's the difference between this and Mr. Carbone is this building has been there for 100 years with this STEPHEN HAM : Right. We're not introducing non -conforming use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken anything? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jerry anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date and we'll read your memorandum. STEPHEN HAM : Happy 375th which we're celebrating in Southampton as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6853 HOMES ANEW I, LTD. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for a Request for Variance this is for Homes Anew # 6853. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 28, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for an addition to existing multi -family dwelling at; 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, located at: 9625 Main Bayview Road in Southold. Is there someone here to address this application? Please state your name for the record and spell it. FRANK RESTITUTO : Frank Restituto. I'm the architect representing Homes Anew. I have the mailing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we have here is a reconstruction of an existing front porch built about 1900's? FRANK RESTITUTO : That's correct yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And now just repair and now it's a front yard setback of 10 feet the code requires 40 but you are not changing the existing setback FRANK RESTITUTO:We're reconstructing it as it is. May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In place and in kind. FRANK RESTITUTO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's see if the Board has any questions. Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea why are you reconstructing it? FRANK RESTITUTO : It's in a state of disrepair and it has no railings around the perimeter. We're going to install railings and replace all the understructure which is deteriorated. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And what is the necessity of the porch? FRANK RESTITUTO: The necessity? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yea. Is that the main entrance to the building? FRANK RESTITUTO : Yea actually it is the main entrance to the house yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And it's been there for FRANK RESTITUTO : And it's been there since the 1900's yeah. We're not going to be removing any shrubbery, trees or anything to reconstruct this. We're just going to take it down and then rebuild it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I saw the drawings and you said that you can the roof is to remain? FRANK RESTITUTO : Yes it is. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It's because it's structurally sound? FRANK RESTITUTO : It certainly is yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have no further questions at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING: I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No thank you. 38, May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that was simple. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application. I told you we'd catch up. FRANK RESTITUTO : I didn't even get a chance to read my presentation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well why don't you just because we have a tape recording go right ahead. FRANK RESTITUTO : I won't take up your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what why don't you do this submit it to Vicki. She'll make copies for the Board and we will read it. FRANK RESTITUTO : I will do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When something is this straight forward and simple we tend to be very grateful let's put it that way. Is there any other comment you wish to make other than the submission. FRANK RESTITUTO : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? Anyone in the audience? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 39 May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6858—TREASURE ISLAND COVE, LLC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Treasure Island Cove, LLC # 6858. This is request for Variance from Article III code Section 280-15B and the Building Inspector's March 30, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on a building permit application for construction or a non -habitable accessory garage and attached sitting area, at; 1) less than the code required side yard setback of .25 feet, located at: 14911 Main Road (aka NYS Route 25) (adj. to Dam Pond) in East Marion. DAVID JANUZZI : Good morning madam chairperson members of the Board my name is David Januzzi I'm the attorney for the applicant Treasure Island Cove, LLC. This is our first trip to the Zoning Board on this property. We're doing lots of work to the west but this is a separate application and I believe the. first variance application. Its interesting operation of the code in that this footprint would be allowed if that space was not was conditioned space but the vision of the house is that there will be a breezeway which renders the structures to the south of that to be deemed accessory structures as opposed to being tied in to the original house. So there is actually in effect a building permit that allows this exact footprint if the space were conditioned but it is the relief we're seeking in effect is a larger breezeway than is allowed under the code. Therefore the structures to the south of that become accessory requiring relief from the side setback so instead of 25 foot setback we would be going for a 20 foot setback. The neighbor to the west is actually the same owner so they would be the one most impacted if the variance were to be granted. Obviously they would have no objection to this and as I said the footprint of the house is permit able as it stands today if it was a conditioned space. So I just note that in terms of in effect that it would not have a great effect on certainly the impact of for the neighboring properties and I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a 5 foot side yard setback that you are requesting. DAVID JANUZZI : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :20 opposed to 25 DAVID JANUZZI : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any questions Eric? MEMBER DANTES : The existing house or the proposed house that you're building is closer to the property line than this proposed accessory structure? 40 May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting DAVID JANUZZI : No it's in the exact same spot same footprint that there's a permit existing as we speak today. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) 20 foot setback so you're asking to match DAVID JANUZZI : It's just the operation of the fact that it's the non -conditioned space renders the rest of the building to the accessory so if .it was conditioned space the whole building is under one roof and we would have it. So the footprint does not change. Sort of a quirk of the code I guess. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I think the difficulty here is that a principal dwelling is required to have a 20 feet side yard and accessory structures are required to have a 25 foot side yard. DAVID JANUZZI : That's correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And you're asking for a 20 foot as an accessory structure. That's why you're here. DAVID JANUZZI : Correct 5 foot off of what the code allows. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is there any reason why that breezeway could not be conditioned space or DAVID JANUZZI : It was intracle into the design of the house. They were very clear about their design and of this being open thorough fare. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the open thorough fare opens to what? DAVID JANUZZI It's sort of a walkway between the garage and the other part of the property. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay looks Like there's some type of court going on there maybe. DAVID JANUZZI : I think basketball court/parking area. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay. Then I see there's a tennis court proposed nearby and so it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George anything? MEMBER HORNING : Sir you mentioned that parcels to the west are owned by the same. Im May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting DAVID JANUZZI : Under different entity DomeLuca LLC and Treasure Island LLC. They're maintained as separate entities but it is the members are the same and I mentioned that only so that they're obviously would not have any objections as it is their own plan. MEMBER HORNING : And they're not here presenting any objections. So the two parcels shown on I don't know if you have what we have for the tax map to the west are they combined just like the two parcels in Treasure Island Cove? DAVID JANUZZI : They are. That was we had just gotten through the Planning Board and originally we were looking if you look at this overall map there were four lots. There were four separate lots pursuant to a 1980 subdivision I believe it was and we were just went through the process last year that the two western lots are now combined to be one lot and the two eastern lots are combined to be one lot. So now of the four there are two lots east and west. MEMBER HORNING : Right so you're correct in saying that the lot 23-1-2.3 and 23-1-2.5 are one lot. now? DAVID JANUZZI : If that is the north and south lots correct. MEMBER HORNING: Okay. DAVID JANUZZI : So you're looking at eastern the two western lots are united and the two eastern lots are united. MEMBER HORNING : When you're looking at the development of this site did you consider attaching the garage so you wouldn't need a variance? DAVID JANUZZI : It is attached in a sense that the second floor.is attached it's the operation of the breezeway and not having conditioned space that renders everything else to be accessory but it was important for the design of the house that they keep that space open. MEMBER HORNING: What is the importance? DAVID JANUZZI : The vision of the householder and if you knew the architects and the houses that they have designed this is sort of their continuing modus operandi in the houses that they build and they're really considered one of the top architectural firms in the world. MEMBER HORNING : Did you consider an alternative location that did not require a variance? DAVID JANUZZI : We thought -that the variance was minimal with a minimal impact so this is what we had decided on approaching the Board with and because of the sensitive wetland area to the south there's not much room to the north with our setbacks and our septic's and this is really the only configuration that would allow all of the structures with which they desire. ME May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you were to create a conforming"side yard and just shift the entire things since its brand new construction over slightly what would that do? DAVID JANUZZI : I don't believe there is room for there's a problem with the septic. We literally were down to about 10 feet or so where we were allowed to do that so we wouldn't be able to shift the septic you can see them in the north. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just trying to explore why when you're building something from scratch it's a long thin lot but it's a pretty good sized house but when you're building something from scratch we need to understand why the variance relief is required you know why it just couldn't be designed to be conforming. I can certainly understand the rational of keeping the breezeway open and 5 feet is not an egregious sort of variance but I just want to understand for our decision why you couldn't either move it over 5 feet or make it 5 feet narrower and accomplish the same thing. DAVID JANUZZI I believe that there was a problem with designing it cause they understood the issue when they went into it. Seeking my office for advice you know and looking at the application an attractiveness for a variance it is not a high degree of deviation from the code so that was part of our discussion. MEMBER HORNING : The variance you're seeking is for the western side correct? DAVID JANUZZI : Correct. MEMBER HORNING : So the reasons for the appeal I don't know who wrote these I'm asking you to help clarify that for our sake. Reason #1 you have the location of the proposed accessory garage and attached sitting area 20 feet from the property line will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Next statement the adjoining property to the east will share the driveway' the parking area and utilize the breezeway between the accessory garage and the proposed dwelling as ingress egress to their dwelling. Can you DAVID JANUZZI : That should have been I believe that they meant to say to the west. MEMBER HORNING : Yea alright cause it didn't make sense when I read it. And second reason the proposed two story dwellings location cannot be shifted to the west is what this says because to the northeast corner would unduly impede 100 foot what we're talking about to be conforming you'd shift it to the east. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's reversed. DAVID JANUZZI : To the east to the east yes. IN May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an error it needs to be reversed. MEMBER HORNING : Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for pointing that out. So it's a wetlands setback. MEMBER HORNING : I just thought it didn't make any sense when I read it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're quite right. Anything from anybody else? Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? Jerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wished to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserved decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6854—JOHN FISCHETTI and DEBORAH DEAVER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John Fischetti and Deborah Deaver # 6854 request for Variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's March 3, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling, at; 1) less than the code required May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting minimum front yard setback of 60 feet, located at; 2615 Wells Road (adj. to Richmond Creek) in Peconic. TOM SAMUELS : Tom Samuels from Samuels and Steelman architect representing the owners. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a notice of disapproval says front yard setback at 57 feet the code requiring 60 1 think the plan says 56.8 feet? New porch? TOM SAMUELS : Yes the existing building it's an existing residence which already encroaches 3 feet into the required 60 foot setback. We are proposing an open porch on the ground floor which extends an additional 6 inches into that space and I think that's where the discrepancy may occur. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so the setback is 57 feet plus or minus or is it 56.8 is that the actual front yard setback according to your plans? They round it off sometimes. TOM SAMUELS: According to 56 foot 8 inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN So the renovations are really in place and in kind just with the TOM SAMUELS : We're adding a second floor on this house and we're using the existing foundation and footprint except where this porch is concerned and it really was a matter of just trying to make everything fit within that footprint. Tried very very hard to do that and it ended up being impossible to fit it in without this encroachment I mean not impossible but this was the approach we chose to take to allow it on a design basis to come into the setback and then come to you guys to seek your approval of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's 3 Meet into the non -conforming area of front yard. TOM SAMUELS : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Eric questions? MEMBER DANTES : What's the current setback to the street? TOM SAMUELS : Existing setback according to the survey I mean the site plan that I've given you is 57 foot 6 inches. MEMBER DANTES : About the same. TOM SAMUELS : Very close. Like I said we tried really hard to fit it into at least the existing setback which was a non -conformity and all of the second floor will except for a stair landing is within the required setback it's just this porch needed to stick out or the approach we ended up ME May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting settling on included this porch sticking out a little bit further and then a stair landing above that porch to make the new stair work to the second floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN So wait the existing house is at 57.6 you're saying and the proposed porch is at 56.8? TOM SAMUELS : That's correct. If you've visited the site the existing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it's just a yea alright. It's pretty diminimus. TOM SAMUELS : It is diminimus in my opinion but obviously the Building Department you know didn't agree with that. It does not go as far out our proposed addition does not go as far out as the existing sidewalk if you've visited the site which is the reason why I didn't stake it because it's concrete and so we said we thought you would see what was going on there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We have the LWRP has a comment something about the pool. TOM SAMUELS : Yes the pool issue is yet to be addressed. It's already been applied to at the DEC but the Trustees of course can't hear it until we work our way through you guys first and then the LWRP will certainly start to be a question we already had the Trustees down to the site but they can't accept an application until MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Until you come through here. TOM SAMUELS : Right and they will take up exactly the LWRP issues that are probably already stated and in.front of you. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Very good thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, Jerry? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6856 —ROCCO RESCINITI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Rocco Resciniti # 6856. This is a request for Variances from Article III Section 280-15F&C and Article XXIII Section 280- 124 and the Building Inspector's February 12, 2015, amended February 19, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on a building permit application for construction of an accessory garage, at; 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) location in other than the code allowed front yard on waterfront properties, 3) total square footage of more than the code maximum allowed of 660 square feet; located at: 1220 Little Peconic Bay Road (adj. to Wunnewetta Pond) in Cutchogue. Please state your name for the record. JOHN SBAGLIA : Yes my name is John Sbaglia I'm the architect 1050 West Shore Rd. Mill Neck. I'm here representing the owner Mr. Resciniti for this project located at 1220 Little Peconic Bay Rd. in Cutchogue. We're here today to ask for leniency to construct a three car garage. The (inaudible) required front yard setback of 35 feet. We're asking for 20 feet from the northernmost corner of the garage. We're asking for the location other than code allowed front yard on the waterfront properties and lastly we're asking for a total square footage of 840 square feet which is 180 square foot over the 660 square foot allowed. We're under the maximum covered maximum coverage allowed. The proposed garage will be 24 by 35 feet wide and 18 feet at the ridge. The grade at the floor level is at elevation 10 and the elevation at the road is 18 so the garage will be mostly hidden from the road. We're also proposing a parking space beside the garage cut into the hill with railroad tie terracing and the garage will match the architecture of the house and fit perfectly into that corner. Any questions? May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes the code only permits on that lot size a maximum of 660 square feet cause it's a small lot and why can you not make that smaller or conforming for that matter? JOHN SBAGLIA : Well the owner would like a three car garage. He has three cars and he would like them to be all in there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're proposing to heat this? JOHN SBAGLIA: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any plumbing? JOHN SBAGLIA: No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will it be finished space or just rafters studs what? State your name please. ROCCO RESCINITI : Rocco RescinitiI'm the owner. Mostly rafters and studs. A few decorations car things. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well in addition to space for three cars you have space for a lot more than that too. ROCCO RESCINITI : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a full set of steps you got a loft above with some dormers and what are you planning to do up there? ROCCO RESCINITI : That's for storage for off season clothing for documents that I have for nick knacks and for various other things that I can't store anywhere else that's why I'm having a garage really to protect the cars. One of the cars I have I bought it for my retirement so I have an old car. I bought it in '96 there's only 1800 of them made so I want to protect it and protect the other cars. Since I've lived there for 15 years we had a snow, hail came down it actually damaged my neighbors cars dents all over the top of it cause I'm on the water trees break and everything else so I just want to protect the cars and keep them off the street too so they don't look obscene you know parked on the lawn or something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what would the problem be in creating a conforming front yard setback of 35 feet. JOHN SBAGLIA : Well it would put us closer to the water. It would also encroach on that side yard setback in front of the house. We're also trying to use the existing driveway as it is. It May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting sweeps in that matter that I show it so we were just trying to keep everything working the same way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN.: Okay I just have to explore these questions on the record. Just so that you're aware all of us have visited the property so we've seen the neighborhood. We've seen the existing dwelling and where you're proposing. You have it staked out we've seen where you're proposing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Make I make a suggestion madam chairwoman? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Any possibility of you building a two car garage with a carport off the one side thereby protecting your cars your existing outside and keeping it ROCCO RESCINITI : Having it parked outside isn't really protected from the weather. It's always been my dream believe it or not I'm a car guy. Having a three car garage is always a dream to have and I'm going to be retiring at that house, we've lived there 15 years. I'm going to be retiring and selling the house that I have now and moving there permanently so having a garage with three cars in it is to protect the cars and everything else I'm going to be putting in there which is like I said documents, papers, clothing, some furniture pieces, my wife's things. I also I'm a woodworker so I use that space also for a woodworking, repairing the cars and all the things on the cars to repair and things like that. So it's a space that I use a lot you know. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Madam chairperson didn't we just deny one in a similar location on the water up on Nassau Point Rd? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we did. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'm only trying to facilitate something that you know is not really something that we grant too often in reference to these types of variances. I mean I'm just that's what I'm trying JOHN SBAGLIA : Is it the square footage or the number of bays. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It's the square footage in my opinion because the code is you know 750. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea he's right I mean there's nothing that says a one car or two car three car it's the square footage. I think because the what's the height proposed to the ridge? Eighteen and the fact that you're way below the road grade I think speaks in your favor relative May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting to its visual impact. Do you know of other non -conforming larger garages in the area that have received variance relief? ROCCO RESCINITI : I don't know off hand. I know there are other garages that are like my situation a front, they've been there for a longer time. They're two car garages. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But technically you're in a side yard. If you were in the front yard in other words it was moved more in front of your house that would be a conforming location you're in a side yard. ROCCO RESCINITI : Blocking the front of the house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well no I suppose it's a front yard because it's not it's in the side yard location but because it's ROCCO RESCINITI : It's really like a front yea. It's not really a side per say because you're traveling down the road it bends over there in that spot so instead of actually a side it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I misspoke it's technically a front yard. It is a front yard. Yea well I think if you do some of your woodworking upstairs and you reduce some of the footprint you and get this down to a little bit smaller you can still get three cars in there. It looks like it to me. JOHN SBAGLIA : How close can we get to it to the 660? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'd have to sit here and design it for you which I could do but not right now. JOHN SBAGLIA : I'm asking how much would you allow over the 660? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I can't what I prefer is for you to bring this down to the closest to 660 that you can and tell us what that amount is or are you going to propose something Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I would say 660 1 don't see why you need to have a non -conforming size garage square footage wise. It's in a location that's in the front yard which is permissible on waterfront properties. Mr. Goehringer suggested possibly some type of carport to make up for the third space. ROCCO RESCINITI : But that's still keeping it outside those like I said I'm a car guy I'm crazy about cars to protect them as much as you can. My cars look like brand new and they're old. So the whole idea of having a bigger garage is to have that space and I can work in the garage with the cars in there. I really don't want to be taking them back and forth in and out of the garage to do that. ME May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Sure I understand that. ROCCO RESCINITI : Places to put my tools. Making it smaller I can't bring upstairs to go up and down the stairs I'm too old for that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Have you entertained the idea of possibly adding a garage to your existing dwelling? In that case you could make a bigger garage. In other words it wouldn't be considered an accessory structure. It would be considered an addition to your dwelling in which case it could be larger than 660. It can be up to your lot coverage. ROCCO RESCINITI : To the house itself you mean? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yea yea. JOHN SBAGLIA : Would the proximity to the water be a problem there? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Would the proximity to the water, well ROCCO RESCINITI : Cause it would actually be closer to the water if I attach it to the house where it is in the front yard. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Like where the wood deck is and something like that? I don't know again that's something that I don't design but if it's attached to the home okay you can have a larger garage cause it wouldn't be an accessory structure any longer. MEMBER HORNING : Particularly if it was on the north side and that would be the further side away from the water. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It might require you to reconfigure some of your home I'm sure with the interior. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well given where the wetlands are and all of that that's going to be very problematic. To be that close to Wunneweta Pond and the hardship is that there's all these wetlands and a pond right there and to begin building and doing land disturbance that close to a fragile environmental condition. ROCCO RESCINITI : I'm only the corner of the house is only 15 feet from the water I couldn't possibly MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Then that's the argument for not doing it. am May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now the thing that I think to look at is the reason I said side yard is if you look at your own survey or site plan I guess in this case you'll see that it's partially in a side yard. There's a corner of it now it's not sited in the Notice of Disapproval it's sited MEMBER HORNING: Yes it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where's is partial. MEMBER HORNING : There's three variances they're applying for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is the third one? MEMBER HORNING : In fact it's in bold print. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh wait a minute then I was right. MEMBER DANTES : This is the amended Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay I'm looking at there you go so there yea well that's a pretty small percentage in the side yard okay but they did finally site it. I was looking at the original so there's wait a minute partially in the side yard, front yard at 20 feet and then size okay. I don't think the partially in the side yard is that big a problem and I think the front yard setback probably could be 25 instead of 20. MEMBER DANTES : One of the things we usually discuss with the applicant is your permitted to have more than one accessory structure on the property but with the wetlands is there is it feasible design to do a design that has more than one accessory structure on the property? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they have a small shed. No wood patio it's called there it is it's a wood shed on the other side. MEMBER DANTES : Or two accessory garages. Can you design that? JOHN SBAGLIA : Sure I can design it but where would it go? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It is really tight up in there. JOHN SBAGLIA : Where it's going to work and away from the water. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Let me ask you one more question. What if they put the two car garage up or the 660 that they're allowed and had a carport that was open on two sides it was closed on two sides with no door on it would that violate the total area? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, it's a structure. May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting JOHN SBAGLIA : Well if it's covered it's covered if it has a roof on it it's covered. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea but I look at it from the point of view of it being open on one side. MEMBER HORNING : I think from our perspective especially for new construction we're trying to consider the least amount of variances possible or necessary for an applicant. So if you had a smaller garage that was code conforming size you could probably fit it in your front yard with one variance so you would need one variance rather than three. That's I think the point we're all trying to have you consider. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's the thing why don't we give you some time to take a look at this to see I don't think anybody's objecting to you having a garage that's not an issue can you bring this down to a smaller size conforming ideally if not give us an argument as to why it has to be a little bit bigger than conforming. Bring this more say 25 foot front yard setback and you know submit an alternative draft you know an amended application and we'll give you some time to do that and we can just simply adjourn this to in two weeks from today to the Special Meeting. The Board will take a look at it and see what we can do. Our obligation again is to grant relief where justified but we're really required to try and make everything as conforming to code as we possibly can. The law doesn't really permit us to personalize variances meaning that you may be a big car buff and really want to put your cars there but you may sell the house someday and then somebody doesn't even own has one car. We can't really do it based on hobbies per say. We have to try and do this relative to what the code allows us to do so whatever you can do to make this a little more conforming and discuss it you know we'll see what we can accomplish. If for example you find that there's a lot of other garages in the neighborhood that are bigger than what the code permit that have gotten variances if they predate the code that's not what we're looking at because they were there before the code you know they were made non -conforming by virtue of the code coming in. But if you can look at the character of the neighborhood for us and tell us what else is going on that's similar to what you want that will help us. ROCCO RESCINITI : I can tell you there's a house being built right across from the creek that I'm in it's like 5000 square feet. It's taller than any other house and I think they're I'm not sure if they're building a three car garage I haven't actually seen it but somebody told me it looks like they may be building a three car garage. It's a huge house so I wouldn't be the first one CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if their lot is a lot bigger than yours then they may be able to build it as of right. The problem is your lot size you know and you do have a lot of restraints. I mean there's a very big drop from the road level down to your driveway and where your house is. You've got wetlands and so on. I think the Board understands you have some limits on what RE May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting you can do and we're just asking you to think about amending the application to either eliminate a variance or reduce them as much as possible. JOHN SBAGLIA : Well for instance we're proposing 35 feet. If the garage was 30 feet wide by 22 feet deep we're proposing 24 that's 660. That would work? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely. That's the major variance is the size. JOHN SBAGLIA : Cause 30 feet is a tight three car garage but it would work. And 22 feet is not as deep as you wanted but ROCCO RESCINITI : It'll just give me room for workbenches. JOHN SBAGLIA: Right. So if we propose something like that then MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The way I'm looking at this personally well as a member here is the 660 is the breaking factor. I don't see the need for anything larger than that. You can have a conforming garage. I see the complications you have with your lot and the existing factors on your lot such as the pond and everything, the wetlands, the configuration, the topography where the side yard non -conformity is created by an angle in the situation of your house. Whereas like that I can personally grant more relief to the side yard is not that big of a deal on this particular case for me. And what was the other one the front yard setback we could probably gain more relief in that by reducing the size of your garage to a conforming size. So taking that extra length and adding it to the front yard setback. JOHN SBAGLIA: Going from 35 to 30 would give you the 25 feet that you're asking for. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well we're not asking for it you're making it more conforming. I mean we're not up here to horse trade that's not our you know function. We try to get the least variance possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea and it's our obligation to explore in the record what the practical difficulties are in meeting the code and what we're seeing here is that you can meet the square footage most logically of the code and you can increase the front yard setback I don't think partially in the side yard is a big problem and then that just makes our job easier to do and we would rather that you come back with amended plan than us imposing something on you. That way you will have a chance to discuss it and see what you prefer rather than we can't do that. We can give you alternative relief. We can say denied this and then you gotta come back with the drawings and I think it's preferable for all parties concerned if you propose an amended application and eliminate whatever variances you can or reduce them. So if we give you two weeks is that good? Will that work? May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting ROCCO RESCINITI : Can I just agree to that now to make it 660? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what that means well let's see what that front yard setback would be then. JOHN SBAGLIA : Twenty five. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well we would need something to refer to perhaps another site plan showing I'm sorry JOHN SBAGLIA : Amended plans. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Please yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we could yea I would you know what I'd rather do is fine we can give you alternative relief which simply means that then you are going to have to submit plans that conform to the alternative relief that we're granting or we can wait until you give us the drawings and then we can stamp those as approved. Either way you're going to have to submit them so it's just a matter of whether you want to say we're amending our application here's the new drawings or we can say this is what we're willing to grant we would deny the excessive size okay and we would increase the front yard setback and allow the side yard partially you see what I'm saying? JOHN SBAGLIA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I don't mind I don't care which way we do it. Does the Board have any preference? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I think it's better off with them coming up with a new plan and so we have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's cleaner cause then we have the drawings we can stamp them we're done you know as opposed to and now it's up to you tell us what time you need. I think what we should probably do is just adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks. I assume you can get that into us by then. At that point we can close and probably even deliberate the same night if we know that's what's coming then we can just call out those drawings right in the decision and then the Building Department will get them and then you can proceed. Should we do that then? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It's probably to your advantage cause now you have the opportunity of from beyond this time to talk and discuss your needs and wants you know. MR May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we don't want to you know if you got if you rather do it slightly this way than that way that should be your choice. Okay so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on May 215t. Is there a second? JOHN SBAGLIA : I just heard you say the 21St. I won't be here I will be away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's okay you don't have to be there. You just submit the 21St is a Special Meeting at night. It's not a public hearing. It's just where we deliberate on decisions and it's a public meeting so the public can sit in but you can't speak. JOHN SBAGLIA : Oh okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6855 — JAMES and CAROL SCHERER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for James and Carol Scherer # 6855. This is a request for Variance from Article XXII Section 280-116B and the Building Inspector's March 17, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling, at; 1) less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located at: 1015 Bungalow Lane (adj. to Deep Hole Creek) in Mattituck. Just state your name for the record. JOANCHAMBERS : Good morning I'm Joan Chambers. I live at 50620 Main Rd. in Southold. I represent the owners who are also here Jim and Carol. This is an existing deck. It's a pretty May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting small deck. It's 26 feet by 10 % feet. It's a wooden deck attached to the house on the waterside of the house. Jim and Carol would like to enclose it with some screened panels and obviously put a roof over it at the same time. The roof is a very low pitch 4 and 12 so it's staying down as low as we can possibly keep it. It's about 11 Meet off the top of the deck and it's not going to have windows, doors just strictly screened panels and we're not going to make it- any bigger make anything closer to the bulkheads, the water the neighbors anything. Just basically screen and roof the existing wooden deck. And they're also going to be putting a shed dormer on the house but that's nothing that's being addressed at this point. It didn't require a variance for anything it's just an alteration to the house but what the Building Department was talking about was the structure on the existing deck had to be referred to you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a question? Who did the plans that you submitted regarding this? JOAN CHAMBERS : I drew the plans Jim Deerkoski did the engineering. Jim Deerkoski. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a you're maintaining the 19 foot bulkhead setback and there's plenty of other homes that have similar non -conforming bulkhead setbacks in that neighborhood. We've all done a site inspection we're familiar with the neighborhood. This is an unheated seasonal use? JOAN CHAMBERS : It's strictly screened. Unheated, unfinished just screened panels. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Yea well it looks like one of the adjacent houses isn't even bulk headed it's just an irregular shore line back there. It certainly won't be seen from the street. I actually have a question that is related to the use of the accessory garage on. the property. It would appear that there is an apartment in there and do you have is there C.O. for second dwelling on that or an apartment? JOAN CHAMBERS : Jim and Carol may be able answer better because I believe when they purchased this property the first thing they did was remove the accessory apartment from that building at the request of the building inspector so it is now just a vacant garage basically. It's doesn't have an apartment in it anymore. So perhaps CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you just come up and state your name for the record .and confirm that as the homeowner. JAMES SCHERER : James Scherer 1015 Bungalow Lane Mattituck. Yes it's there was an apartment up there and it has been everything has been removed from it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have a C.O. as a for that as an accessory garage? 57 May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting JAMES SCHERER : It's a C.O. for a garage correct.. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When did you purchase the property? JAMES SCHERER : November of last year. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so this is brand new. November 2014 purchase and the apartment is now eliminated. JAMES SCHERER : Correct yep it's just us that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright George go ahead. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I just ask you a question Leslie? Why wasn't this basically disapproved for both alterations to an existing dwelling which is not conforming in reference to it's setback? Since they're going to put dormers on it and so on and so forth. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : (inaudible) like normally from a bulkhead setback when you like renovations and additions that would have been flagged as well right? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And I'm saying this you know pragmatically so that there's not a particular issue when they go and do that. JOAN CHAMBERS : Can I make a comment. I think I maybe know why. The dormers on the second floor of the building we're not doing anything to the first floor of the building and the building is you know 68.8 feet back from high tide so maybe they considered that we were far enough back with the dormer on the second floor. I'm just guessing. They never brought it up with me. When Mike Verity you know said that you're going to go to Zoning Board for the setback on the screened porch so I really don't know his reasoning behind that but perhaps it's because it's the second floor dormer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If something is landward of that non -conforming setback often the Building Department will not sight it because it's on the landward side. JOAN CHAMBERS : No it's on the water side of the ridge you know the ridge of the house runs parallel to the creek and the dormer is going to be built on the water side of that ridge. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yea particularly (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then well who knows why they didn't site it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Maybe we should address it in the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I mean we can certainly just simply say May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS Could we if we just clean it up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if we stamp these drawings and they're on there then they're approved. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I think though we gotta call it alterations and additions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wasn't it called additions and alterations. JOAN CHAMBERS : I think it was yes it was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's called additions and alterations. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Oh it was I apologize. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question. I'm looking at the survey now and in the Notice of Disapproval it's at 19.8 feet from the bulkhead but there's two bulkheads. JOAN CHAMBERS: Yes there are. MEMBER DANTES : Why did they site the rear bulkhead and not the front bulkhead? JOAN CHAMBERS : The rear bulkhead meaning the one that's closest to the house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yea. JOAN CHAMBERS : I don't know why cause the bulkheads as you all know you were down there are almost identical. It's not like one is the main bulkhead and the other is sort of the old one that's falling down. MEMBER DANTES : Do you know the difference from the house to the water side the bulkhead closest to the water? JOAN CHAMBERS : No. I can get that information from the surveyor for you if you'd like but I don't know that information no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well cause one looks like it's almost a land bulkhead and the other is the one that's by the water's edge. MEMBER HORNING : And it's all full of sand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yea. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : One might be a retaining wall. May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it could be determined to be that. It's called out as a wood bulkhead but it really is more of a retaining wall when you're talking about the way in which it's built on the land. JOAN CHAMBERS: Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not separating water from land. JOAN CHAMBERS : Which is more a definition of a bulkhead and the one closer maybe actually should be called a retaining wall then. MEMBER DANTES : I just think if you give us the number for the forward bulkhead it would lower the substantiality of the variance. Would you need the variance yes I guess JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes we still need the variance the house is actually too close. MEMBER DANTES : It makes it a very almost a minimal variance. .MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It's within 75 feet. MEMBER HORNING : I don't know if we can change the way the Building Department wrote you know the Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No only they can. We can overturn it or we can put in additional information. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I think we definitely need to know because that is a retaining wall and it's not really the bulkhead and if we set if we give a variance for 19.8 from a bulkhead then the neighbor can have a 19.8 bulkhead variance. JOAN CHAMBERS : It sets a precedence. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Where this is really a retaining wall and Jerry to go back to your discussion CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They certainly didn't do a site inspection and so what they looked at it says wood bulkhead on the survey. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I have to be honest with you I couldn't even find that first bulkhead. The second bulkhead or the farthest one out because it was totally covered in straw okay. I mean it was absolutely covered. This is something we have on the north side also and -so maybe when the other members went down there, it was existing. I mean I could see that there was Sic May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting an existing bulkhead there but I mean I had to really hunt for it okay and now it maybe the straw might of gone out but which is basically phragmites that are dead not really straw. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Jerry I think you're point before about the addition -to the dormer is probably included in this notice. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea I understand that and I apologize. I did read this last night and for some strange reason I missed it but I mean conceivably 268 is very important you know because now you're going to have another dormer up above so everything has to have the proper situation CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One thing is to request an amended Notice of Disapproval but another way to do is for you to simply tell us what the distance between the porch proposed porch and the seaward bulkhead is and in the decision we can note that there is a bulkhead that sited as a bulkhead that is in fact a retaining wall and that the setback to the wood bulkhead that is closest to the water than on the edge of the water is X and site the notice that way. JOAN CHAMBERS : I can ask Nathan Corwin to give you a signed letter from him you know obviously you know I'm not licensed to give you a dimension. I can get Nathan Corwin the surveyor. I'll call him he can say you know you're whatever 45 feet and sign off and give you a letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's perfect. JOAN CHAMBERS : Before you make the deliberation. I agree with you. I understand that if you give a variance for something that's only 16 feet off a bulkhead you open the door for everyone along the creek pointing at it so let's do it to the one by the water. I think it's probably a simple thing to take care of. Okay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else anybody? Well I know no one else in the audience wants to address it? Okay so I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of the information from the surveyor about the distance between the seaward bulkhead and the proposed porch. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING: Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. sm May 7, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) May 7, 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: Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE: May 15, 2015 Ch 3