Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/04/2015 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 June 4, 2015 9:46 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 N June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page William A. Penny, III and Sukru Ilgin (CV) # 6839 & # 6840 3 - 4 Steven and Andrea Kolyer # 6860 5-19 Breezy Shores Community, Inc. (Martha Brooks) Cottage # 4 19-24 Andreas Pfanner # 6859 Southold Farm and Cellar, Inc. (Meador) # 6861 Kevin and Paula Flaherty # 6863 0 24-31 31-33 33-37 June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6839 & 6840 WILLIAM A. PENNEY, III and SUKRU ILGIN (CV) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first Public Hearing we've opened both of them previously so we don't need to read the Notice of the Legal Notice into the record both of them are for William A. Penney and Sukru Ilgin. One is 6840 which is an application for is that the one the Special Exception? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh no that's the canopy setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's area variance and ok CV alright. And the second one which is 6839 is for a Special Exception permit for a gasoline service station with convenient store. Is there anyone in the audience who wished to address this application? Please come forward and would you please just state your name for the record. CAROL BERTSCH : My name is Carol Bertsch and I would like to ask you to please deny the application for the following reasons. The half mile stretch between 48 and Route 25 is the most densely populated area in all of Southold. There are at least 200 people on this block at any one time. There are 12 residences, 92 units in Founders Village and 4 businesses that attract many customers not to mention the Town Hall Annex, all of your fellow employees down at the corner. The volunteer fire departments in all of the Towns of Southold do an excellent job. If the permit is granted there are insufficient ambulances and EMT volunteers to evacuate the residence, employees and customers if there is any emergency at the proposed gas station. I think it would be a very difficult decision to make to determine who would be rescued first. The residence with the young children or the wheelchair bound senior citizens in Founders Village and most of the Founders Village residence are vital and fit and to get all 92 owners out of there at the same time would create a colossal traffic jam. The site plan for this proposal shows 6 gas pumps with one nozzle on each side for a total of 12 nozzles. This is more pumps than any than the two closest gas stations combined. The closest gas station is the one on 25 and North Bayview which is 1.6 miles away from Young's Ave. and 48. The other one is the BP station in Peconic which is 2.5 miles west. It's excessive. Another major concern of mine living on Young's Ave is that there the plan shows two egress driveways one leading directly onto 48. If any cars trying to make a left onto 48 there's a traffic light immediately there. It will be almost impossible for a car to make a left directly on to 48 and in Peconic while there is the gas station on 48 there is a break in the island right there so that the cars have a little place to hide. There is no such place on the two lanes of Route 48 and if they egress onto Young's Ave. and intent to make a left it is impossible to see the cars that are exiting 48 on to Young's Ave. There is a specially designated lane and you cannot see the cars coming around that curve. I'm sorry I'm Italian coming around that curve if you come out of the egress driveway onto Young's June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting Ave. There are there have been accidents there in the past at the cost of a couple of lives. Another reason to deny this is that the gasoline tanks are proposed to be located to the west and underground immediately adjacent to the Peconic Land Trust farmland. Any leak from these proposed tanks will contaminate the soil rendering the produce in eatable and I believe to permit this to go forward will inalterably change the character of the tranquil neighborhood. Thank you for listening.•And I have other neighbors who if they knew that you would allow public speaking would have been here. A lot of my friends oppose this. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me one moment please. Could you just spell your last name for the record. CAROL BERTSCH : B for boy er t for Thomas s for Sam c for Charlie h. It's pronounced like the tree it's just fancy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok thank you very much. We have a request this matter is also before the Planning Board and also requires site plan approval and a coordinated review and we have a request from the applicant to adjourn this hearing to July and so because it was advertised we got that request actually after the ad had gone in we have to take whatever testimony the public wants to offer because you've come for that purpose because you were told we'd have a hearing today. We will have another one in July so if there's anyone who would like to come in your neighborhood that couldn't be here today and like to come back to do so you're more than welcomed to. It will be noticed again in the paper but that date is July 2nd in this place. So I'm going to yes we have as I said we have a request to adjourn so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn is there anyone else sorry in the audience who wants to address this before I do this? No ok so what I'm going to do is make a motion to adjourn #6840 and #6839 to July 2nd at 10 A.M. 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) June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6860 STEVEN and ANDREA KOLYER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Steven and Andrea Kolyer #6860. This is a request for variances under Article III Code Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's March 9, 2015 Notice of Disapproval for a building permit for a subdivision at Proposed Lot 1 (lot 10)-1) less than the code required minimum lot size of 80,000 sq. ft., and 2) less than the code required minimum lot width of 175 feet, Proposed Lot 2 (lot 9) -1) less than the code required minimum lot size of 80,000 sq. ft., and 2) less than the code required minimum lot depth of 175 feet, located at 4075 Paradise Point Rd. (adj. to a boat basin) in Southold. Pat you're here to represent the application? PAT MOORE : Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Kolyer. They are the owners of both parcels. Mr. and Mrs. Kolyer are here today so that if I need to turn to them for any questions they're here and if they have any comments obviously you'll hear from them. I will go by way of the area variance criteria and there are several points in support of grant of this variance. To begin with we will not change the character of the neighborhood or and there is no detriment to nearby properties if this variance is granted. The two vacant parcels are located along the basin of Paradise Point subdivision section 1 which was approved by the Planning Board. Paradise Point and Bayview contains 16 lots on 9.18 acres. The density of the original 1963 subdivision was based on taking the acreage into account .57 acre lots. This was in 1963 substantially larger than what the code required because at the time there was the minimum requirements for lot creation was 100 foot width of a lot. The lot sizes were somewhat they weren't regulated. The two vacant lots were originally approved as separate lots in this 1963 subdivision and the two these two lots are of only three remaining vacant parcels in the subdivision. The third vacant parcel is that owned by Mr. Boyd who I see is here today but and his parcel is similarly sized to the separate parcels as proposed. The prior owners the Elfers purchased the two parcels in '63 from the original developers and they remained separate until the exempt subdivision section in the code was removed in 1996. So, as far as the Elfers were concerned they believed they had two separate parcels and there was nothing to prompt them to split them. While several comprehensive plans and this Health Department article 6 regulations were adopted the two lots continued to conform and were grandfathered. The two lots should be allowed to return to their original size and configuration. Both parcels are improved with bulkhead. They have separate marine structures. One has a full wood dock and ramp float. The other parcel has a concrete boat ramp. The docks were constructed in such a location so that they would be at least 15 feet from the property line and 15 feet from the property line between the two lots. Both lots have separate utility and water hook ups. Each lot was given its own tax map number and its own separate address. Each lot has generous and June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting conforming building envelopes and each lot is able to support a house at least the same size and character of the other homes in the community all without variances or any other permits or variances possibly Trustees permit being the only issue. The prior owners, Elfers acquired the two parcels in 1963 on one deed. They described it as lot 8 and 9 on Paradise Point subdivision. The manner in which this deed was prepared was very common at the time because these were lots on a subdivision map most of the deeds in Town would be read as attaching parcel 1 and parcel 2 or parcel #8 or parcel #9 on a filed subdivision map. When the Kolyers purchased the property the title company they used the same description so essentially that the under our waiver of merger law provisions the Elfers while the Elfers were the owners of the parcel the lot merged and therefore today I can't apply the waiver of merger law which would be a much simpler re -subdivision or split of the property. The amount of relief requested is not substantial because the attached list of lots of the original Paradise Point at Bayview subdivision and the lots along the bay side of the street are similarly half acre in size. I believe I attached but I'll put on the record again the list of all of the parcels in Paradise Point at Bayview which consists of section 1 a second subdivision that was attached so I will just put that in your files just in case because my (inaudible) we'll get you whatever others come in. The Kolyers parcels each over a half acre in size while the variance request is substantial we recognize that because of the R80 zoning designation. The subdivision was developed with lots that are less than a half an acre and less than 175 -in width. The entire subdivision is developed as I said except the three lots and the two of the three lots are the Kolyer's parcels. The largest lot is located larger lots are located on the, bay which is a subdivision that was approved in '84. This was applying a 2 acre parcel requirement however if you look carefully at the subdivision map you see that the buildable area is equivalent to what the rest of the community has which are half acre buildable areas. The parcels go to the bay and you see marsh and wetlands encumbering those properties. If the Kolyers parcel is remains as one parcel it will result in the building envelope that is double the size of the surrounding parcels so our position is recognizing the two separate lots would in fact keep to the character of the neighborhood in on the subdivision that is very well established completely built out or substantially built out at this point. We received the comments from the LWRP coordinator and the Planning Board and we respectfully disagree with some of these conclusions. You mentioned just off the record comments about sanitary systems and some of the comments you're getting under LWRP and I would point out first and foremost that the County Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan has not been adopted. You have to follow what the Health Department regulations or we will have to follow the Health Department regulations when the sanitary system goes in for approval. I would also point out that the Health Department we had intended to get Health Department first because these lots will be recognized by the Health Department as lots existing in 1981 and on a subdivision map. However, the Health Department regulations changed in that they're procedures have changed. They want all municipal permits first before they will grant their 6 June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting approval. So one of the comments I heard you say was let's get let's send people for sanitary approval before they come here that is practically impossible unless you coordinate with the Health Department and have them change their procedures. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat just to be clear. I wasn't suggesting that. PAT MOORE : Alright. No I heard Steve mention that I don't know if I heard you correctly or not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No he was saying something else. PAT MOORE : Oh alright. I was back here and I was trying to hear so in any case you should know what the procedures are. Each lot can conform to, the current standards. The standards are we have to maintain the sanitary at least 100 feet from any water body. In our case the bulkhead. We conform we will conform to all the sanitary regulations and there is public water in the street with separate meters and a T joint hookup for each parcel. So as far as comments from LWRP and the Planning Board regarding sanitary issues those sanitary issues do not exist. I have participated in recent programs on alternative sanitary systems. They are being considered but they are yet they have not yet been approved by the Health Department and we don't know timeline when they might be approved. They are available in other states and but at this point they are not available here. In any case they're not required. The sanitary system regulations that are being considered are targeting non -conforming sanitary systems. Parcels, undersized parcels that have original systems that are either improperly or not conforming to construction standards of sanitary systems or are not in conformity with the setbacks of a minimum of 100 feet from water body. That is not the case here. We do we have again as I've pointed out a conforming system. With respect to some of the comments about nitrogen concentrations again that is regulated by the Health Department and nitrogen concentrations for residential development is dependent on the number of bedrooms not the size of the house nothing else so one house on this parcel could have ten bedrooms, eight bedrooms whatever the owner wishes to have the Health Department will regulate the design standards of that sanitary system. With two separate lots we're going to most likely have a house that is a reasonable size again conforming to the rest of the community, the community of Paradise Point. And the size of the sanitary system and the number of bedrooms will be more modest so in as far as nitrogen concentration and effluent so on again that's a Health Department issue but common sense tells you the bigger the house the more likely that you're going to create more bedrooms so the comment just really makes no sense as far as a reason to deny this area variance. Oh I'm sorry what? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn't mean to interrupt you. I think it would be useful for the record and for anybody else in the audience who wants to address this application since you're in the midst of describing these documents one is a memorandum from the Planning Board that June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting we get because this requires subdivision approval should the variance relief be granted and the other is a document from the LWRP coordinator. Now just so I know you're aware of this but the LWRP coordinator determines that this proposed action is inconsistent with the LWRP. Now this Zoning Board cannot approve anything that is not consistent with the LWRP. What we have to do is to find should we approve ways to mitigate potential impacts that are described in this LWRP document and therefore with the mitigation we can conclude that it's consistent. Just so the Board's clear on how we have to act. So what I'd like to do is just to share information enter into the record a couple of those comments which you've been addressing but without benefit of everyone understanding exactly what the comments were so let me first read what just excerpts I'm not going to read the whole thing it's part of the public record anyway a few comments from the Planning Board which basically says that the request is inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan because of the adverse impact of the quality of the ground water which in turn will cause pollution to the bay. This area is already densely settled `and every home has a septic system, lawns and landscaping. And then it goes on about nitrates leeching and water quality blah blah and then it says chemicals from pesticides commonly used on lawns and up in the groundwater ultimately the bay adding another house with its septic system and landscaping in this location will increase the pollution of the bay which leads to the conclusion that increasing the density beyond the current zoning should be prohibited. It mentions also that trees would be cut and so on and that they are valuable natural resource. Then the in a similar but more technical way the LWRP coordinator reinforces the same concept of the same you know basic conclusion that an additional septic system the reason things were up zoned was to avoid that sort of thing. Makes reference to the fact that and this is something maybe Pat you and I could you know the Board can take a look at just one technical thing. Portions of the property are located in the FEMA flood zone AE elevation 8. The Suffolk County FEMA flood zone delineation does not match the survey submitted. The FEMA flood zone AE elevation 8 flood zone extends farther west on the Suffolk County GIS system. He's got you know a figure attached anyway the building envelopes however are proposed to be located outside of the AE flood zone. And then finally this is sort of interesting proposal which is that the proposed lots if approved would equal 24,263 sq. ft. and 25, 873 sq. ft. and septic systems are proposed on both. The action would contribute to increasing nitrogen concentrations and so on again contaminated ground water, algal bloom but this is the part that I'd like to maybe make some comments about or anyone in the audience who wants to. It says due to the threat of further contamination and pollution it's proactively recommended that Article 6 be amended to require one acre density in hydro geologic zone IV to protect surface water quality, unless 1. A higher level of treatment than is provided by a typical on-site wastewater treatment system, or, 2. The development rights from existing undeveloped open space controlled by the developer are transferred in accordance with standards adopted by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services in 1995. The bottom line is that known impacts of additional June 4, 2015 Regular -Meeting density adjacent to surface waters requires consideration of these recommendations and mitigation. Neither recommendation is proposed in this action and no buffers adjacent to the water body or best management practices for landscape maintenance are proposed. Some of those might be addressed in subdivision or by conditions of this Board. I'm raising these things not to belabor it but to make everyone aware that we're all grappling with what in the world to do for all our sakes with this situation of nitrogen loading and what it means now and for our future. We are bound by some of the limits of SCHD which just simply isn't caught up to date yet on more improved systems that are going to help with new construction but this Board is very critically aware of it and we have to somehow in our determination address Planning Boards concerns and the LWRP concerns so having said all of that that's enough from me. I just wanted the record to kind of balance your presentation so people knew what you were trying to address Pat. PAT MOORE : That's fine. In fact actually this is where I was getting to our mitigation and issues and so with respect to the quality of the ground water I still emphasize that when you have a proposed conforming system it is per say not affecting the ground water. If you are complying with the regulations you can't make a conclusion that this property because you'll have a house built on it will impact the ground water. That's we're a little it just doesn't make sense and as a matter of law does not make sense. As far as landscape practices fertilizer control is applied universally on every subdivision application. It's as if the Planning Board forgets their own conditions. If this property were not subdivided all of these issues would be still be in place and there would be no control over it because there is no regulatory enforcement over pesticides and buffers and so on unless you're going through a regulatory process. The Planning Board as part of their standard covenants on every subdivision has clearing limits with respect to the tree removal. Obviously everybody in this subdivision I would say that I don't see any houses that have clear cut their properties in fact most of them have Left it wooded and natural. The same would occur with anybody who wants to buy this property. You don't go buying a property with a lot of woods to clear cut them. The character of this area is wooded and we would suspect that certainly as a matter of law of the Planning Board covenants clearing limits so based on the size of the property on a half acre parcel I believe off the top of my head you have you cannot clear more than 45% of the property so that's addressed through the subdivision process. If you wanted to adopt that section if you wanted to impose the same condition as a covenant we would certainly agree to that condition since it's a matter of law required under the Planning Board subdivision review process. As far as so again the same thing goes for pesticide application fertilizer control. I just prepared covenants for the Planning Board on a two lot subdivision where there was an entire page of conditions on pesticide application and the standards and the limitations and so on. So, those items are addressed in the subdivision review. If you wanted to impose as a condition of your subdivision it's duplication but it's going June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting to be as a covenant anyway so there's certainly no opposition to that and we agree. So as far as the issues that were raised by the Planning Board which were ground water quality to the ground water pesticides and trees those are addressed specifically through the subdivision process however we would certainly covenant through as a condition of Zoning Board. Again Zoning Board leave it to the Planning Board to impose the C&R's because that's where you're going to end up what we call polluting the title because you end up with so many C&R's one over top the other in a sense they're going to be the same conditions are going to be imposed. With respect to the LWRP I would respectfully suggest that the comment again with respect to the sanitary system by the LWRP is stating recommendations for laws that are not on the books they're recommendations and we are presently in compliance with the sanitary code and the nitrogen loading of a property. With respect to the flood zone lines I have a survey that is certified by the by Mr. Corwin and it's a current survey relatively current survey that flood lines have not changed and on this property it only shows a small AE elevation 8 along the bulkhead within a buffer area of the bulkhead. The remainder of the property in particular the building envelope and I would say about 50 feet from the AE 8 elevation line is X zoned X. So we are outside of the flood zone and we are an E lot an E development on this property would not be subject to either flooding or erosion. Again this property has a fully functioning very well maintained bulkhead which adds to the protection of any flooding or erosion. With respect to LWRP recommendations and so on I would point to the most recent area variance for lots in this subdivision is Mr. and Mrs. Zupas property. That property contained what the Building Department determined ,to be two uses on one parcel and the area variances that were required for that parcel were two uses. It was deemed that 160,000 sq. ft. was the requirement for a lot to have two uses so the Zupas methodically went through the process of getting Zoning Board approval and through multiple I'm sure you're aware just from I don't know I know Mr. Goehringer was on the Board I don't know who else might have been on the Board but there was endless litigation between the Zupas and ZBA, Zupas and the community. The communities and Zupa and Zupa with the Trustees and the Trustees back so the litigation was endless and I wouldn't want to attempt to even list the litigation but I have to say the parcel that was developed which was lot 1 there's a beautiful house on it right now. Originally was denied by the Zoning Board. The Zupas came in with a creative argument that there were in fact not two uses on the property because one of the uses being the marina was illegal. That throughout the whole process ultimately was determined that no the marina was pre-existing and including all the litigation was a Town wide interpretation so there was a lot of litigation. Nonetheless the bottom line is that the only parcel that I saw here with area variances because all the other parcels have been developed with the lots as they presently you know in the subdivision the separate lots as they exist. Actually was granted the substantial variance if in fact it was you know the lot size comparable to the 160,000 sq. ft. that is required. Bottom line is that one house was developed the lot #1 has wetlands, has easements has a lot of impedements to it 10 June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting but the house is there and it's a beautiful house and it has not damaged the character of the community or apparently not resulted in environmental damage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat just in the interest of hearing what anyone else might have to say in the audience and one other thing I need to make sure cause we haven't yet entered into the record exactly what the variance relief is PAT MOORE: Oh sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and that's that lot #1 would be non -conforming at 25,873 sq. ft. where the code requires 80,000 and it would have a width of a 122.5 feet where the code requires 175 feet. The other lot being proposed lot 2 or 9 1 think it is would be non -conforming at 24,263 sq. ft. where the code again requires 80,000 sq. ft. and the lot depth in this case would be 152.7 feet where the code requires 175 feet. Ok so that's important that we make clear exactly what the variance relief requested is about. PAT MOORE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd like to see if there's anyone in the audience PAT MOORE: Well I'm actually at the end. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good and then the Board may very well have some questions so PAT MOORE : Do you have questions before people speak? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't but maybe somebody else does. Do you have some questions for Pat before we hear from the audience? MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yea I do. Do you have your Planning Board comments? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's the Planning and here's the LWRP. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So specific to the Planning Board comments you had said what they're concerned about here is usually addressed during a subdivision approval. PAT MOORE: Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Can you -submit something to us like maybe an example of subdivision approval with C&R's whatever the Planning Board does that would possibly be commonly addressed something like this. PAT MOORE : Yes I have one right in the computer right now which is actually a property that you guys approved the Sutton subdivision. This one was with the right of way that the June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting community wanted access. We subdivided two lots being undersized in their acreage and I have I will give that to you that's not a problem. I would say that we're almost at a final version of it so if you just for privilege of my client privacy I just want to make sure it's the final version but we should have the final version this week. There was just one comment I had with the Planning Board a tweek. Aside from that it's going to be submitted so yea that's not a problem. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well you see my point I just want to see PAT MOORE : Absolutely yes and I would refer you also to the subdivision regulations in the code which have clearing limits and I'm not sure if pesticide is an issue it just it's all was applied in the C&R's. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And what about the issues with the LWRP if you can comment on that more specifically. I know you did already you know with the whole nitrogen loading I think that's the big issue here with the septic system. PAT MOORE : Well as I pointed out the nitrogen loading is based on well two factors. One is number of bedrooms and having a larger house without a subdivision will most likely result in more bedrooms. The other issue is proximity to the water body and we are at a conforming 100 feet minimum of 100 feet from the basin so both those issues are addressed just in the standard Health Department regulations as well as well in this case we don't have DEC because of the bulkhead but Town Trustees require and the Trustees wetland regulations require sanitary systems to be at least 100 feet from the water body being 100 feet so we do conform in all respects so conformity concludes that you're complying with nitrogen loading. Until the regulations change we have no idea how the regulations might change and we do welcome alternative systems to be proposed. We just had a program this past weekend where I heard a professional speak about the different types of systems. There are actually 5 different systems that are being like a pilot project that it being proposed. One person in Mattituck is receiving one of those systems and currently the Health Department if you're putting in one of those systems they still want a full system as a backup. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh so you have to put both in? PAT MOORE : So if you are suggesting putting in a system until the Health Department accepts or the alternative system is an only system you can't use it as the sole system. I've checked with the Health Department specifically about small like for accessory buildings, compost toilets and that was the answer I got that no you know even though we know they work and compost toilets create no effluent because it's self-contained it burns the effluent. They are not allowed without having connection to the standard system so right now it is in flux but in a sense it's unfair to have the last person in this subdivision suddenly be imposed with all of these possible no June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting perspective regulations without knowing what they're going to be when in fact you can conform. So I can certainly give you information if you'd like I have the professional I have contact with that professional about alternative systems. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea that would be interesting. PAT MOORE : If the Board is interested in learning about it but right now they're not approved for use County wide. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : County wide so Suffolk County Health Department has not approved any of these. PAT MOORE : It's the Health Department yea. They are again they're going to monitor these proposed systems. They're going to take in they're gonna check the effluent that comes out and in some cases I'm hoping that they will accept it because in some cases the effluent and nitrates were down to almost nominal insignificant amounts so I will share that with you for your information but not really relevant to this particular application. MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me do this I know other Board members may have some questions right now but I really want to see what the audience has to say. I think 1 know that there are some people who live in this area who no doubt want to comment. Would you please state your name. VICTOR ZUPA : Madam chairperson my name is Victor Zupa and my wife Mary Zupa is here as well. What's been referred to as lot 1 we've developed is a home and we appreciate the comments that it's a beautiful house and the analogy that she has drawn between the subdivision and the Kolyer's property and what happened with us. We certainly remember the litigation that we had to go through. I don't think that I'll ever forget it. The only comment I had to make with what Pat said was that lot 1 it's called lot 1 because somebody drew a 1 on it and circled it. Lot 1 was never part of the 1963 subdivision. The subdivision consists of 16 lots two of which the Kolyer's lot that they're trying to subdivide two of which are property we own adjacent to the Kolyer property which is merged into one lot. Lot 1 what we call lot 1 the point lot and (inaudible) lot were actually set off at a later date. They could not be included in this '63 subdivision because they couldn't get Health Department because of the clay content of the soil both in the (inaudible) lot, our lot and point lot. So that's the only thing I want to say. We weren't really part of the 1963 subdivision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Anyone else? June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting ANDREA KOLYER : I just wanted to say this for the record that we would want to keep the neighborhood as nice as we could and do whatever you know your suggestions are if you let us have this go through. We want it to look nice in the neighborhood as well. I just wanted to let you know that's important to us okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. STEVE KOLYER : Along the same lines in the discussion of the concern on the environmental side as Pat said there's an unknown future for what regulation will be applicable and it's very hard to definitively state today what would be a precise plan for a future that isn't known yet. However, we would be vigilant to watch for what developments do come on that score and we're highly empathetic sympathetic towards the needs and the sensitivities of that and so if there were something we could do to assuage concerns on that front I think the arguments that Pat made speak for themselves in terms of the relative numbers of bedrooms that we would expect to come from a single lot development versus two lot but we would be vigilant to follow anything that would be sensible. It's just very hard as Pat said to know right now what that might be. For what it's worth we think that as a single parcel there's a greater potential in this case than perhaps with other parcels for there to actually be someone someday wanting to build a large house there because it is a very it's more than 200 feet of frontage and we think that the potential person who would want to have that much property would probably be we think might be envisioning. So the idea of there possibly being a large house in this case we think is more than mere hypothetical we think that the contexts of this parcel being a single developed parcel brings with it we think a greater than hypothetical possibility that there could be a very large house there. We think that that would be more in congress with the rest of the community than having in this case two parcels and we think in this case the two parcel approach where it isn't the case in every subdivision request. We think in this case it is more fitting that the resulting development of dwellings would be more consistent with what surrounds it currently. But again just wanted to emphasize that we're open minded and empathetic toward the environmental needs and if there's anything that we can do to address those peremptorily we'd be more than happy to consider anything reasonable in that regard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else out there? MARY ZUPA : Good morning my name is Mary Zupa. Having done the Health Department permit myself and gone through several different stages of it because it took us so long to get the permits and the constant changes it what they require presently is when they look at the plan they don't look at the number of bedrooms. They look at the size of the house and the potential for the number of bedrooms you may have. How I know this is because I submitted a plan because we only have three bedrooms and they said no you have the potential for X Im June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting amount and we had to do an extensive you know sanitary system. So it's just for everyone's information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. MEMBER DANTES : It goes by they look at the rooms and it's whether the rooms on the plan can be used as bedrooms that's how PAT MOORE : What they do is they ask I can address that thank you he was asking specifically the configuration of the rooms as well it's true. What they do is they ask for a floor plan. The rooms that have closets automatically are presumed to be bedrooms. A room that looks like a bedroom doesn't have a closet but adds another guest like an office or depends on how the configuration of the house in the floor plan. They can require you to make design a sanitary system that could that would accommodate the conversion of one of those rooms into a bedroom. So while the property owner may not have the intention of making it a bedroom some person down the line that wants to convert it into a bedroom they want to make sure the sanitary system is adequate so you're correct there's a little of give and take with Health Department if they feel that the house could accommodate more bedrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know one of the things that the Board is I think increasingly aware of because we do get these kinds of things on a regular basis is it's particularly tricky when you're dealing with a property that is very very environmentally adjacent to a water body and that has wetlands on it and so on and other kinds of constraints. Building on those kinds of properties is much more complicated than if you were dealing with a nice you know half acre flat property in the middle of town or something where there's no impacts on adjacent water bodies. And we've all of course been to the site. We know Paradise Point anyway and we've been there a number of times and we certainly just recently looked at this property and indeed there were lots of environmental constraints on this property and you do have even though they're oddly shaped lots building envelops that conform to the bulk schedule and it is possible to buffer them but I think we're going through this rather lengthy hearing because these kinds of reviews are increasingly important to all of us who live here. I mean you know including the property owners. Nobody wants to have a beautiful piece of property and watch it disintegrate or degrade rather over time as a result of not involving oneself with best management practices for everybody's sake. PAT MOORE : We agree with you in the sense that we would apply again through the subdivision process and I will submit that the application of best management practices that are incorporated in the covenants and restrictions of a subdivision. As far as the environmental sensitivity of this property the property has a bulkhead and has upland that is almost it will let's call it equivalent to a property that is in the middle of a farm. It has the upland the only 99 June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting difference being that it's adjacent to the basin. The basin is I don't know if it was man made or if it was natural it's kind of a modification Mr. Zupa might know more the history I don't know but essentially it is a contained area that flushes but it doesn't have the storm erosion potential that possibly a Bayfront or a sound front parcel might have. So relatively speaking the environmental the sensitivity of this property is no different than any of the other houses that are surrounding the basin and I know I've gotten variances Mr. Mortemer got a variance for the setback of the house right next door to one of these lots because of his parcel was very narrow and in order to meet the front yard setbacks we had to encroach on the rear yard setback to the bulkhead. But nonetheless it's a modest house and it's certainly has no obvious environmental impacts. So you know I think that these the concern about environmental sensitivity can be addressed through whatever conditions you would impose and again I will give you those C&R's. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How do you address what Mr. Zupa said about the fact that these lots were not really a part of the original filed subdivision map? PAT MOORE : No no no he's saying his lot and the Sinning lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh alright yep I got it. It's all coming back to me. Got it. PAT MOORE : of the 1963 subdivision. We would ask that the hearing remain open. We'd like to submit the C&R's to you. I'm very sure we'll just carry it over and if you have any questions regarding CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on if you're going to talk to her step aside and go and talk to her. I want to ask the Board cause in the interest of time I mean George do you have some questions. MEMBER HORNING : I could have sure. I'm having a hard time relating her lot numbers with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then why don't you ask her to let me ask her to put those lot numbers on to the plat. MEMBER HORNING: Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Come up. You just submitted the list of lots and what would be very helpful is if those lots were coordinating with. the plat so we could see which is which. The County keeps changing these lot numbers every time you turn around. MEMBER HORNING : And the houses on there. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The tax map numbers are right there. :k June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : That's what I was going to say. The way this is set up is the lot number the first lot number MEMBER HORNING : I don't know if you added zeros or what you did to the lot. PAT MOORE : Oh I see this is confusing. GEORGE HORNING : And what one's are actually developed I mean you go down there and it doesn't look very developed at all. PAT MOORE : I think just because of the way that the development has taken place it's people are very sensitive about leaving wooded front yards. So it doesn't look congested but all the lots you have the 1963 subdivision MEMBER HORNING : I don't know how relevant that is. PAT MOORE : It's our neighborhood. MEMBER HORNING : Yea. I don't know that we have that PAT MOORE: You do but you know what I will put in a simple CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here you know what Pat here's what I'm going to suggest cause we will probably have more questions. There's a lot to absorb. There's been a lot of testimony. You're going to submit some stuff to us so we can look at the goal here is A) look at the character of the neighborhood lot size to lot size and be to see what mitigation of any potential environmental impacts we can move forward with. So let's do this. I'm going to make a motion so that we can then continue to question to adjourn this hearing to July 2nd at 10:30 okay and then we can carry on and ask whatever additional questions. PAT MOORE : Let me just make sure I have for you everything you need. So the list, I'll clean up the tax map number cause they it the dot is in the wrong spot. MEMBER HORNING : And if you could put the we know that Kolyer has two of the undeveloped lots as you say and just whatever lot is undeveloped and then if you could list the developed lots PAT MOORE : It might be easier if I just list the undeveloped cause the developed is everybody else. MEMBER HORNING: Well yea but still CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's just Ed Boyd's lot. IN June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yea Ed Boyd's lot is the only undeveloped lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He was here obviously he got called away to a fire emergency so maybe he'll have something he will want to say in July I don't know. PAT MOORE : If you would like me to do it as a color code on the tax map sometimes that's easier. MEMBER HORNING : Yea sure that works. PAT MOORE : The C&R's of the Planning Board standard C&R's for two lot subdivision. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea that's to mitigate their memorandum. PAT MOORE : Oh yea absolutely that's not a problem. MEMBER HORNING : Pat one final question. You mentioned a while back something about grandfathered. I caught that word and if you could give us a written clarification of what you were talking about or if you know what you meant right now. PAT MOORE : I know what I meant. Whether or not you want me to put it in writing is I could do that too. MEMBER HORNING: Well tell me what you meant again. PAT MOORE : Alright what I meant is 1963 the zoning code for subdivision for lot creation the Planning Board approved subdivision but the size of the subdivision still allowed I'm going to say 100 sq. ft. 100 linear ft. Gerry you might confirm this width lots and they tend to be 100 by 200 okay so they were 10,000 sq. ft.? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : 12,500 they were 100 by 120. PAT MOORE : 100 by 100 okay. That continued until the zoning code first the zoning code started to include lot areas for the subdivisions and when the zoning code changed there was a period of time where I think it was '71 there was a huge uproar because the code changed but it only listed like 2 exempt subdivisions rather than all the subdivisions had it been approved by the Planning Board and were non -conforming to the newest code. What then happened is shortly thereafter I think still in 1971 if I'm remembering dates correctly they adopted the Town Board adopted what is known as what is 100-12 I believe is the section which -we still referred to we can refer back to it in `the on the computer June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : For the sake of our Board and the chairperson who want I know wants to move it on and I didn't want to belabor this could you sort of jot it down as a memorandum in writing and so I'll follow through and then I'll cross reference it with Jerry's memory thank you . PAT MOORE : Okay that's fine. It's not such a simple I guess one sentence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not it's history. Alright, any other comments? Hearing no further comments or questions from the Board I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to July 2nd at 10:30 am. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : 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 # 6862 — BREEZY SHORES COMMUNITY, INC. (MARTHA BROOKS) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Breezy Shores Community, Inc. Martha Brooks # 6862. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Code Section 280-123, Article XXII Section 280-116 (B) and the Building Inspector's January 12, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to add and alter, to include raising an existing seasonal cottage at; 1) a nonconforming building containing a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved, unless such building is changed to a conforming use, 2) less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located at #4 Breezy Shores Community, Inc. 65490 Main Road (aka State Route 25) aka Sage Blvd. (adj. to Shelter Island Sound) in Greenport. Hi Amy. June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting AMY MARTIN : Good morning my name is Amy Martin I'm here representing Martha Brooks and as part of the Breezy Shore Community I'm employed by Fairweather and Brown. If there ever was a diminimus request from Breezy this is it. She just really wants to lift it and from 6 foot above sea level where the present first floor is to 8 feet to put it on sono tubes to mitigate any the next -hurricane damage which she had this last time and she wants to move one door that is currently on the road side to the side of the building and put new stoops at both the sliding glass door that is on the water end the side of the water end and steps on the side of both to and from the road and the bulkhead area. So we're asking for I believe we're allowed to have the landings one landing that she's requesting and I think we're when you lift the house you're entitled to I think a 3 by 4 landing a safe landing at the top of a door. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea you are. That was actually my question only just put in the record here that your bulkhead setback is 59.4 ft. which is what it is currently. You're just raising it per FEMA. AMY MARTIN : Right and it is in strict line with the'rest of the cottages it's no farther forward or back. A couple of them deviate a little bit but it's the historic location of this cottage to remain as such. The idea is just to lift it and save it from future wave damage. It was hit in Sandy and minimal interior repairs were made as you know temporary repairs but she'd like to lift it and the only other thing that they're doing is they're also increasing a foot of head room so the roof may or may not be removed but will be put back on just a foot taller. We're not sure how the builder will approach that. Whether he'll try to raise the existing roof or whether he will reroof it but that has nothing to do with our variance request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're adding an outside shower. AMY MARTIN : There is one there. I'm thinking I'm not sure if she's still moving it. It's adjacent to the building now on the same side as the stairs and I think she just wants to move it around to the street side so that it's not where the egress to the stairs you don't have to go around the shower to get on the stairs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My question was you got two set of steps right? AMY MARTIN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One is an entry on the side now rather than on the road side. AMY MARTIN: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the other one on the east elevation which is I guess is the waterside? You have a pair of sliding glass doors with a set of steps. June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting AMY MARTIN: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to pursue this for a minute in the record this is a 4 foot by 8 foot landing you're calling it? AMY MARTIN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to make sure that it's a landing and not a deck. AMY MARTIN : It's a landing and it's not a deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that is code required because of the two doors? AMY MARTIN : I believe I don't know that it's code required but I believe she's entitled to 3% increase in the size so the 3 by 4 to cover the opening of the one door that is active is required but it's a safer landing to have to be able to you know to get in the sliding door to have that larger landing but she's not adding any square footage to the interior or whatever of the house it's just these two landings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you indicated that that would constitute a 2.2% increase. Now I do have to correct you on one thing. She's not entitled to a 3% increase. We have historically allowed for structural purposes AMY MARTIN: Right I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For code conformance, for utilities, head clearance things like that even though the nonconforming building is not meant to be enlarged the Board is acknowledged with prior additions and alterations to the cottages at Breezy Shores that there is a reasonableness in what is almost a diminimus addition that would create greater code conformity. AMY MARTIN : I stand corrected. Basically at this increased height from the ground it is safer to have the 4 by 8 at sliding door it will have a rail just so that you know because of the height off the ground and we are removing the where we're removing the door on the street side which is near the new location for the outdoor shower there is a landing there currently that we will be removing so that was part CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : putting it on the side. AMY MARTIN: Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric questions? ON June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Are you rebuilding this cottage. AMY MARTIN : No. Just a lift and a roof rising. There are no other I mean she just doing some interior room reworking cause it did get damaged. It's not a construction MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It's not going to be a demo? AMY MARTIN : It's a very minimum project. It's just so it doesn't get damaged by another storm. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you'll go to Trustees for permit I presume? AMY MARTIN : I have the application ready to submit today. Hopefully we'll get the written one from here and get to there in July. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Anything from, Jerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Amy this is not a sarcastic statement but in any way but Robert's looked at the floor situation and you do honestly feel that this can be raised? AMY MARTIN : I believe I mean there will be new support beams once the sono tubes are put there but I do believe yes it can be raised. It has been looked at by a moving company and they have they will be able to lift it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And we'll of course know if there is any particular problem based upon a favorable decision. AMY MARTIN: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Eventually you know I'm not speaking for the Board I'm just saying AMY MARTIN : No I mean it's you know it we will make sure it's safe and whatever but there will be new structural components put once the sono tubes are in place it will be lifted you know on MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's approximately a two foot lift over and above. AMY MARTIN : Yes it has to be lifted initially higher to be able to put the sono tubes in and then it's dropped down afterwards. So they put the supporting structure basically below it when 172 June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting they put those beams in to lift it and then they put it back down on it maybe you know partially new platform that they have to sister up some of the things that are existing but it will be a safe structure once it's put back down. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING : I don't really have any questions although there is the question of what the code requires for the size of a landing for a slider. I don't know anybody can find that out I guess but it is an interesting question. I mean I don't think it's 3 by 4. AMY MARTIN :'No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With sliders across one panel is always fixed and the other one moves. AMY MARTIN : I believe the active slider is towards the building on this particular door. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean from an aesthetic as well as functionally point of view it's better to have them across all of them. You know both doors but it's much safer though it does mean a chair or two can go on the fixed panel. AMY MARTIN : I don't believe it's meant to be that I mean she has her chairs on the beach. It's a beautiful place to sit. I don't believe you're going to want to sit you know up on the porch perhaps to put your shoes on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well obviously you understand why I pursued it because I want to make sure that it is a fact a landing and not a deck because we have had some requests previously at Breezy for the creation of decks and the Board has indicated that that was not acceptable or it wasn't characteristic of the cottages and we weren't interested in going down that route so this is just to make sure we're being consistent. Anything in the audience? Anything else from the Board? 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 SCHNEIDER : Aye. June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6859—ANDREAS PFANNER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Next application before the Board is for Andreas Pfanner # 6859 request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's March 4, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for construction of an "as built" accessory garage and "as built" accessory sheds of which there are two, at; 1) less than the minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) accessory garage proposed at more than the code required maximum size of 750 square feet, 3) accessory garage located in other than the code required rear yard, 4) accessory sheds located in other than the code required rear yard, located at 2725 Harbor Lane (275 Oak Street) in Cutchogue. Hi Mike. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning Mike Kimack for the applicant. The back story on this is that the gentleman started construction on this accessory building and then received a stop work order. I believe it was roughly in the same location in an old school house that was there at one time. It's overall dimension as it exists as you visited there partially constructed was 22 by 42 or 924 sq. ft. which exceeded the 750 sq. ft. and as a result of that size it also cut too close to the property line I think it was 11.4 feet away from the property line as opposed to 15 feet. What you have in front of you is you have a new survey and drawings that reduces the size or proposes to reduce the size of that building the 33.5 or 748 sq. ft. to come within the code and also by reducing it it increases the setback from the property line to 16.9 feet. So that reduction in a sense we would dismantle the frame and cut back on the foundation and reduce it to 33.5 eliminating both of those violations and coming into conformance with the code. As a result of other than the rear yard my request is that you consider making Harbor Lane the only front yard. It's a difficult'situation when you've got two front yards because you are both you're in violation no matter what you do with other than the rear yard. In this particular case you'll know from the drawings the accessory building on those two 3 by 9 sheds are in or would be all El June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting in the rear yard by making Harbor Lane the only front yard on this and there's nothing else that can be put on that at all. It's a very odd shaped piece of property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we remember because we were part of the merger of those two properties. MIKE KIMACK : I thought so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's a complicated Trust thing. It was 6707 in February 2014 so it was just Deeroski Irrevocable Trust. MIKE KIMACK : I went back on some of it to get some of the history on it too. So overall the overall thing is to by reducing the size of the building we can get rid of two of the violations and the requirement for two of the variances because it would be less than 750 and then more than the 15 feet. But the other it would be requested of you to simply designate Harbor Lane as the only front yard. By doing that you're remove the other two violations simply by a matter of decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're going to conform to the size and side yard setback. MIKE KIMACK : Yes. The building would now be 22 by 33.5 which would be 748 sq. ft. and by doing that by cutting it back it goes from 11.4 to 16.9 the side yard so it conforms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it's just the location. The other question I wanted to ask you is the prior had a couple of conditions on it. One was the removal of the old schoolhouse. There's another great big accessory structure there. MIKE KIMACK: It was taken off. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you all remember that? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yep. MEMBER HORNING: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The schoolhouse is gone, dilapidated. MIKE KIMACK : I think it was in the same location roughly that this accessory building is going up in. Not exact but somewhat in the same place. MEMBER GOEHRINGER': It didn't stick out as far as this one sticks out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's another accessory June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You actually had to go around the barn to actually see the schoolhouse. MIKE KIMACK : And actually from Oak St. in a strange sort of way with the two sheds there this isn't very high it's not a peaked roof it's a shed roof on the garage so it only stands about 16 foot high. Most of it is behind that existing garage that you see from Oak St. right there. If you're passing it most of it is hidden and of course by cutting it back another 9 feet you're taking away more of it you know to hide behind the other existing building you know from Oak St. from a visible point of view. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask you a question? Can the shed be moved to a more conforming location? I'm referring to the wood shed. MIKE KIMACK : Near the (inaudible). Jerry I don't know. I mean if you do grant the request it would be in the rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here's the thing Mike. I don't think the Zoning Board can make that determination. We often have through lots Like this. Many many properties are through lots and then old ones that are in corners. The Building Department has to make the determination and we respond to it or not. So I think you know it's safe to say that given the configuration of the lot we could certainly grant the relief for a nonconforming location. I don't believe that we can in a decision designate this as a rear yard. MIKE KIMACK : Then there's a little bit of confusion because I have asked that question of the Building Department and they said go ask the Zoning Board. A.T.A. KIELY : You can. You have that ability but it depends what mechanisms are being utilized. If he's asking for not a code interpretation he would have to appeal that question that exact question like if he went into the Building Department and asked Mike whether or not this is a front yard and he says no it's not but yes it is and he can appeal that particular determination to you and then you can overrule Mike. So you have the authority. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Through that process. We'd have to overturn the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval designating front yard. MIKE KIMACK : Well they did a Notice of Disapproval because they said other than the rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I know but that wasn't the request well you did ask us to make a determination that it was a rear yard I suppose. BE June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : In a sense I apologize for the semantics on this one but you're right the violation was for other than the rear yard and I asked for relief for other than the rear yard by designating only one street. And if I am able to do that then all the violations are in fact satisfied. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask another question? What is the purpose of the new construction? MIKE KIMACK: He's got a garage and some storage basically. He's got a place to put his cars. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's that other large accessory structure used for? MIKE KIMACK : I don't know I guess whatever storage is in there I mean I never questioned what's in all of the different garages. He has a business in he travels around I'm trying to remember it's an art type of a thing so maybe he buys and sells arts and such like that, furniture and such like that and his businesses so he's always in another country buying some stuff so it may be associated with that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : He's not doing anything on the site thought that would not be other than residential? MIKE KIMACK : Yes all residential no commercial no no no he's not starting a business there at all. This is simply residential. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's interesting because I would of thought if you have the two they're really like cribs those two storage sheds they're referring to they're more like corn cribs. They've got wood in them at the moment. MIKE KIMACK: I believe so yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would seem to me that if I was storing wood I would probably want it for my fireplace in my house and I would probably want it behind my house rather than over there. That's a long way to go to get wood. MEMBER DANTES : He's got more storage over there. MEMBER HORNING : Yea on the other side. MIKE KIMACK : Yea maybe he's spreading the wood around I don't know but you're right there's wood storage on the other side over there. It's a busy I mean it's a big it's not your normal size lot to begin with its many many lots put together. It's the biggest piece of property down there basically and it's just 7 June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's really pretty well screened already it's got lots of evergreens there already, a lot of rhododendrons. MEMBER DANTES : I mean just for the maintenance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh just to .maintain the existing evergreen vegetation. MEMBER DANTES : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine. MIKE KIMACK : Eric you're right. It's fairly treed right now and on back I just drove it this morning and the rhodies are right out in full bloom for the most part it's rather pretty in that one corner right there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What is the amount that is taken off the building to make it conforming? MIKE KIMACK : Jerry the original was 924 sq. ft. it was 22 by 42 in order to conform it was 8 feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So 8 Meet has been taken off? MIKE KIMACK : Yea it comes back to 33.5 which would make it 748 in order to conform to the 750 and by doing that it also then extends from 11.4 to 16.9. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Is there storage upstairs or is it just a high ceiling? MIKE KIMACK : No no it's just a flat there's no second floor. You got the architectural drawings there. It's a shed roof. I think it's (inaudible) sheds back. MEMBER HORNING : What is the proposed square footage then? MIKE KIMACK: 748 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So really -you're it's really an amended application. MIKE KIMACK: In many respects yes. Amended to remove CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two variances. MIKE KIMACK : Two variances and the request the front yard one in order to remove the other two variances. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Mike is there going to be an egress on Oak Street. IN June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK: Not from that side no. It's all going to be from Harbor Lane side. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So it will be able to drive to these garages? MIKE KIMACK : I'm not quite sure how they're gonna get there. There's no way to get from the back right now because those two sheds are in the way. There's no way to kind of drive. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's odd. You'd have to bring a MIKE KIMACK : Yea there myabe be a.slight driveway to bring it around over there to bring the cars in there, around the shed perhaps on the south side of that shed. I think there may be a slight driveway right there now but it's not much of anything. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Like a dirt driveway. MIKE KIMACK : It's a dirt driveway at the present time. It's not going to be a very active spot and it's just south of those two Jerry. I'm sorry go ahead. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I need to ask the Board a question. I very rarely do this. Is there any contention on the wood sheds at this point at 21.6? Do you want it brought over so it's even with the 28 feet or there abouts? Does that Board want that to be done? MEMBER DANTES : I mean they're not bothering me personally. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea and I would tend to agree because it's not like they are really large storage sheds. They're really very low. They're very narrow. They're quite small structures and I think what I'd rather do is simply grant variance relief for the nonconforming location because we have lots of thru properties and if we start you know making determinations that say this is we can say this is a technical back yard although it's designated as a front yard because it's a thru lot based on the orientation of the house itself on the property the Board sees this as the functional we often call it a functional rear yard. MIKE KIMACK: That's a good way of putting it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And kind of describe it that way. We've done swimming pools that way things like that where it's you know being screened from the public street and I think that's probably a better way to go then to try and start overturning these notices because then the Building Department's gonna get do we take that precedent. Do we then you know what I would rather just say yes it's a second front yard cause you a thru lot but we don't mind that it functions as a rear yard. We don't mind that it's there. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What was the previous variance that was for a waiver of merger that was denied? 9 June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it was merged. MIKE KIMACK : It was merged. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It was merged. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was merged because it was inherited by a caretaker through irrevocable trust and we made the determination. We did a code interpretation and said in fact that is a legally recognized relationship.. Remember it was only allowed to happen through family. MEMBER DANTES : I thought he was a caregiver. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Caregiver I'm sorry yes not caretaker. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So it did merge. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Caretaker suggests property caregiver people yes. But that's remember that. It was a big decision. I mean we decided that it was a legally acknowledged relationship thru irrevocable trust that the trust had established that there was a personal relationship. We just broadened the definition of family and allowed for that cause it's an extremely large odd shaped lot very out of character with the neighborhood but I think the do you know if the one of the other conditions was something about a was that proof of title conveyance. That's done good. That's what I needed to know. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Last question of the Board. Does anybody have an objection on the Board that if for any reason that the shed become dilapidated I'm referring to the two wood sheds which are not really a significant structure that they be moved to the conforming distance of a setback as is the barn they refer to it as a second garage but it's a barn we refer to it as a barn. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait I'm not sure what you're asking. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : If the sheds become dilapidated and they are rather than having them reconstruct it in their same nonconforming locations that they be moved to a more conforming location which is approximately 28 feet from Oak St. Anybody have an objection to that in line with the barn? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean if in fact they are they fall down they deteriorated they should not be replaced in that that's fine. They're not going anywhere for a long time they're brand new they're not but sure that's fine. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. 3,0 June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I'm going to fall down before they do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anyone else in the audience who wished to address this application? Anything else from the Board? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close this 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) HEARING # 6861— SOUTHOLD FARM and CELLAR, INC. (MEADOR) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Southold Farm and Cellar, Inc. This is # 6861 request for Variance under Article III Code Section 280-13A(4) and the Building Inspector's April 9, 2015 Notice of Disapproval for a building permit for construction of an agricultural production building, at 1) less than the code minimum required setback of 100 feet from a major road, located at 860 Old North Road Southold. Is there someone here who wishes to address this application? We have a request by the way it is being adjourned. Yes there is a request by the applicant for an adjournment it is going to be adjourned by request of the applicant to July 2nd let's see why don't we put that down 10:45 am but before I make that motion if you would like to say anything now you may because it was noticed and it's open to the public. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Are you the applicant? AUDIENCE MEMBER: I am not. 32, June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay. Whatever you want to do. We'll hear what you want to say. You're here. We don't bite. ALISON LATHAM : My name is Alison Latham. I live at 1755 Old North Rd. right down the road from the property. I object to the application. My concerns are really two fold. One is that the proposed building is extremely large and it's only a one acre lot which is nonconforming really in the area most lots are at least two acres if not more. Their application continued to indicate that they own 23.65 acres which is not exactly true in that they own the one acre lot and they own the 22.65 behind it but they are two separate lots and on this small one acre lot there is a house existing, there's a barn existing and I just think it's quite much to put this huge building on this small lot. It's only going to be 60 feet from the road and it just doesn't match anything in the neighborhood at all. My other concern is I understand that there is. an open building permit for the barn to turn that into a tasting room and I don't want to see a tasting room on my road. I think it absolutely will increase traffic. I have looked at the site plan. I don't see that they have I don't think they have adequate parking proposed for it and if they're allowed to have a tasting room there then that means that they can have events and they can have music and unfortunately I think that the Town has seen wineries don't necessarily make good neighbors. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask you a question? Is the tasting room there already? ALISON LATHAM : Well yes they've been operating a tasting room since last season and it's my understanding that they do not have approval for that yet. MEMBER DANTES : Have you spoken to the code enforcer? ALISON LATHAM : I didn't. I haven't. I don't know I didn't. I know I can. I at first actually I was under the impression they had gotten approval for that. I only just a few weeks ago found out that there's just an open permit for a farm stand for the tasting room. So yes they are still they are operating currently as a tasting room. My concern also with the site, I'm sorry CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have inspected the site so we've seen it. ALISON LATHAM : Yea and with the building I mean I know it's proposed to be used for processing but what's to say that down the road part of that wouldn't be converted into a larger tasting room or a place to hold events or something. I don't know. I worry that it would snowball into something that is not appropriate for that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we are adjourning this at their request and part of that is because this requires a coordinated review between Zoning and Planning and we want to be on the same page for everybody's sake so Planning needs more information to give us more comments and we'll need to proceed cooperatively whatever is going to happen on this site June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting and we have to really look into exactly what's permitted on a residential lot in a residential zone and so we will be discussing this in greater length certainly in July. ALISON LATHAM : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. Anything from the Board? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to 10:45 am on July 2"d MEMBER SCHNEIDER : 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 # 6863 — KEVIN and PAULA FLAHERTY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Kevin and Paula Flaherty #6863. This is a request for Variance from Article XXII Section 280-116B and the Building Inspector's April 20, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for as built addition of a stone patio to an existing single family dwelling, at; 1) less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located at 1250 Lupton Point Rd. (adj. to Deep Hole Creek) in Mattituck. He's back again. MIKE KIMACK : He's back. Last man standing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is an as built stone patio addition to single family dwelling at a 47foot bulkhead setback where the code requires 75 feet. The house exists at 67 feet from the bulkhead is that correct. ME June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And this stone patio replaced basically in the same location a wood deck that was approved under permit #3594 in a prior ZBA decision in about 1986. MIKE KIMACK : Yes. In my application description I put in the retaining wall only because they reface it but that retaining wall was the one that was in place for the one that was already approved. So they're no closer I mean what they did is it was a concrete retaining wall along that new deck. That wasn't a new one that was in place because what I did is I gave you and you should have a copy of an old survey from BBB in there showing that wall in the same place. The old permit indicates less than 50 feet so we can and this was 47.3 nothing is moved any closer than what was originally previously done. The deck simply disintegrated and they decided they thought they had the right to replace without a permit and they were wrong. And that's why I'm here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What kind of deck was it Mike? MIKE KIMACK : It was a wood deck yea as specified in there. It lasted longer than I thought it would but apparently it was in pretty bad shape though. They just replaced it actually it looks rather nice. They did a nice job. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need Trustees permit on this too? MIKE KIMACK : I filed and what happened was because of I didn't know the situation. I filed for. Trustees, Trustees had that mailed out interoffice (inaudible) it's on hold. Once I hopefully get your approval I'll go back and get Trustees. DEC approval we should be able to get non - jurisdiction on that. That bulkhead was in prior to 1977. 1 was able to find a photo. A little blurry but it shows the wall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jerry questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : How old is the stone retaining wall that you said that you put in or it was put in? MIKE KIMACK : You know Jerry I don't know how long it existed prior to that but I think it might have been put in the same time the deck was put in in 1986. It doesn't refer to that in the permit that Leslie referred to. It just says the deck basically it doesn't refer to the retaining wall but if you look at the picture that was drawn in 1998 you got the copy of this survey it's an 8 by 11 where they depicted the wood that retaining wall was there so I have to assume the retaining wall was part of that original deck simply because of the elevation June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We actually have two stone retaining walls here. We have the lower one and the upper one. MIKE KIMACK : You have the lower one yes basically but that wasn't a part of the violation the lower one although that is part of the violation for the Trustees. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay the point is when did they take title to this property? MIKE KIMACK: I think about 3 or 4 years ago. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay so the lower stone retaining wall was there when MIKE KIMACK: The lower one they put in. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Oh they put in? MIKE KIMACK: They put in. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : When did they put that? Did they put that in right after MIKE KIMACK: About 3, 4 years ago and then what they did MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the upper one MIKE KIMACK: Was there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Was there. MIKE KIMACK : And they refaced it with stone apparently it was in pretty good condition. The concrete bulkhead had existed prior to 1977 Jerry I'm not quite sure when it was put in and it still stands. It's in pretty good shape. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The question is is there any drainage system. I didn't see any coming off of that basically patio. MIKE KIMACK : There is no drainage coming off the patio. I suspect that when I get to the Trustees that will also be part of request perhaps to they're doing an addition Jerry to the side of the house that falls within the Trustees setback that was the reason I went to them in the first place not realizing that I did not have the permit for the deck. As part of that addition they'll be a dry well put in for that. We could probably accommodate the additional square footage for the depending upon how it runs off the stone deck. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Do we have this is the sun room situation and the mason patio that you're referring to? 5. June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK: Yea. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Is that what you're referring to? MIKE KIMACK : The sun room no the sun room on that one side would be on the west side. Their addition is going to be on the east side. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : East side. MIKE KIMACK : Yes sir. It's not a very large one about 300 some odd square foot replaces an internal bedroom and bathroom. Makes it a little bit larger as a matter of fact the existing one (inaudible) their living space. That's not a zoning issue because the setback on that is fine it's conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.George anything? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER Nope no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time. MEMBER HORNING : Leslie we could ask him how he's going to address the memorandum of inconsistency the LWRP. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I would suggest that it's inconsistent because it was left without benefit of Trustees he's going to the Trustees. If we want we can condition it based on Trustees permit. MIKE KIMACK : Yea I mean the inconsistency is simply because they didn't have the permit in the first place I believe that's the way I read it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else? Okay hearing no further questions or comments since there's no one else in the audience I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER HORNING: Aye. June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) June 4, 2015 Regular Meeting CERTIFICAT10N 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 : E� 9-.L& - Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE: June 11, 2015