The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-11/05/2015 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Southold, New York November 5, 2015 9:30 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES – Member GERARD GOEHRINGER – Member GEORGE HORNING – Member (left at 2:05 P. M.) KENNETH SCHNEIDER – Member VICKI TOTH – Board Assistant STEPHEN KIELY – Assistant Town Attorney ? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Anthony and Lisa Sannino # 6882 3 - 25 Steven and Andrea Kolyer # 6860 25 7850 Main Road, LLC d/b/a The Blue Inn at North Fork # 6675 26 - 29 Rick Nappi # 6828 29 - 36 JuJax Partners, LLC # 6891 37 - 40 Paul Romanelli, Contract Vendee (Robert and Carol Bohn) # 6892 41 - 50 Paul Romanelli, Contract Vendee (Robert and Carol Bohn) # 6890 41 - 50 ADF Ventures, LLC # 6850 51 - 53 Allison Latham # 6889 54 - 56 Southold Farm and Cellar, Inc. (Meador) # 6861 56 - 60 ? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6882 – ANTHONY and LISA SANNINO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our first Hearing is for Anthony and Lisa Sannino and since it was adjourned from September 3, 2015 there is no need to read the Legal Notice. This is a request to create a winery tasting room on a subject property. The lot is there’s two adjacent parcels, one is a residential parcel with a bed and breakfast which is 3.735 acres and the other lot is lot 14.6 which is 5.208 acres. This is to construct a winery and tasting room. The code requires ten acres devoted to vineyard production and it also needs site plan approval from the Planning Board. The variances that are required here are for insufficient lot area and the Planning Board had concerns about the lot subdivision that requires a 110 by 110 foot building envelope for lot 14.6 with 100 foot setback from County Rd. 48 and the proposed winery is not fully within that building envelope that would then require an amendment to subdivision maps from the Planning Board. Secondly there is insufficient lot area. They’re arguing that lot 14.4 with a residence should not be applied to the ten acres and their concerned that we find out exactly what the setback is the distances from the proposed winery to the eighteen residences that are within 500 feet of the winery parcel to insure that they are not the residential area and the winery are not incompatible uses. I think that sort of summarizes the issues as best as I understand them. What my question is Pat would you please let us know bring us up to date on what the applicant has done to address some of those concerns by Planning Board. PAT MOORE : Oh that will all be part of my presentation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I just want to make one comment. I need to recluse myself from this application. I have a sort of a little business relationship with Lisa and Anthony. Though it may be minor it’s still considered a business relationship and I’ll just keep my comments to myself not vote on this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Ken. PAT MOORE : Sorry to lose you because you certainly are the arguments I’m going to make are you’re going to understand very clearly. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I’m going ask Ken to stay on the dais instead of leaving the room. It’s not necessary he’s simply going to as an ethical issue step back from voting or from asking questions or making comments. Please proceed. ? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yes. Good morning. My name is Pat Moore. I am the attorney for the Sannino winery Mr. and Mrs. Sannino are here and I’m going to start out very simply as identifying an issue that quite frankly is one that is not in the code. It leaves us baffled and when we were here when my clients and I were here trying to identify exactly what the Building Department’s issues were we were getting different interpretations different answers depending on who we spoke to and the issue was how many acres are required to make this application conforming. And I say that in the most simplest of terms because depending on who you ask we either are told ten acres or an additional two acres therefore twelve acres or and additional four acres or worse case scenario when taken to the extreme because that’s the way we have to you know if we read the code or the application of this code literally it could be as much as sixteen acres. Those interpretations are absolutely crazy. They do not make sense and that is one of the things that certainly the Building Department has asked us to be very clear that when and hopefully if you grant the variance that we identify all the uses that are presently and proposed on the property and with that interpretation or that determination the Building Department will feel comfortable that the issue of how much acreage is necessary will be addressed. So I raise that very specifically because our code is a disaster when it comes to agricultural operations and in particular how it treats wineries and the issue of the type of winery and the fact that the wineries are not a defined use leaves a small winery in a worse position then some of the largest wineries and the wineries that have been approved in the past. I’ll start with a definition of a winery. We do not have one in our town code. We refer to Miriam’s Webster Dictionary when there is no definition and it just simply says in the dictionary says that since 1882 they’ve used this definition. A wine making establishment okay what does that mean? The problem with our code is that that definition depends on the bubble over the head of the person who’s reviewing it and that bubble can be as simple as oh I’m just a home grown wine maker in the traditional sense and that is a sum of the wineries in the town some of the small wineries. Sannino is considered a small winery and we have the benefit of AGS and Markets determination that I’m going to present to the Board (away from microphone) I have one for each of you but otherwise I will put one on the record and then provide additional copies. It might be faster and easier to proceed that way. I’ll give you the one for the record and then I’ll after the hearing I’ll pull out (away from microphone). So AGS and Markets feels very strongly by the fact that they are providing an interpretation or an opinion that when it comes to wineries an agricultural use of winery that the entire bundle of uses and it can be from a house to the wine tasting and the processing those are all under the umbrella of a winery and what we have found in our research is that that has been the historic interpretation by this town and we can provide numerous examples of parcels that have either had development rights sold with reserve areas or lots in the subdivision that the subdivision I’m sorry do you need something? ? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I just wanted to let her know cause she was busy that this was for our file. You have copies for us. PAT MOORE : I just want to make sure everybody is listening since there’s only four of you. Roll back the tape. So the bottom line is that a winery encompasses a combination of uses which can be for the example the Sannino family. They live on the farm just in the old tradition of a wine making. They are going to have their wine tasting on the farm and their proposed building which is a little over 2000 square feet is considered a small winery in relation to the AG production that is recognized on the state level. I’d also point out that if we look at again Webster’s dictionary on agriculture it’s we do define agriculture in this town however if you look back at the traditional defined definition of agriculture it says the science or art of cultivating the soil and producing crops and in varying degrees the preparation of these products for man’s use and their disposal. That means that in the definition of agriculture which is recognized as the most basic definitions of all that it recognizes that farming is both the science and an art and that the preparation of these products can be a varying degrees and that is something that this town has had trouble grappling with and quite honestly belongs in the legislative rather than any other agency. We are here before this board because of the area variance on the ten acres. Going back to that issue depending on how we one determine how many acres you need per use alright if you’re going to take the definition the Building Department uses which is every use requires two acres and again looking at the bulk schedule that is not the way agriculture is defined and we’ve raised this before and we’re going to raise it here again which is that the bulk schedule in certain zoning districts specifically says two acres per use of two acres for a particular use. When it comes to the AC zoning that language is not in the code so the interpretation of two acres per use using the generic bulk schedule is both inaccurate under AGS and markets state code, state law and incorrect with respect to the zoning definitions in our own code. Addressing the standards of an area variance here we depending on how again the definition the area is how much area is required my client either needs .26 acres or 1.8 acre and the way that interpretation the Board has to come to grapple with that issue both 1.06 acres of .26 acres pardon me I correct that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Say that again. PAT MOORE : Alright it’s either .26 acres if you take the acre to be the 43,560 as a square foot per acre or the numerical 1 acre determination. If you take the square footage conversion then my client has in total 9.74 acres and .26 acres are required. If we take the numerical 8.94 combined acres then 1.06 acres is required in either case it would be considered a minor variance so regardless of the number it is still a minor variance. How we’ve addressed some of these issues on effect on the character of the neighborhood my client has previously provided in writing to the Board certainly to the Planning Board that there is presently a sixty foot deep ? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting buffer that abuts the only residence which is in closest proximity to the Sannino property. That’s the southeast side Steve Pisacano is the owner. He is well aware of this application and there is a good relationship certainly between the two property owners. MEMBER DANTES : What’s the buffer? PAT MOORE : The buffer right now is screened trees well you know what if you come up cause if any questions come up we’ll certainly incorporate that so ANTHONY SANNINO : I’m Anthony Sannino applicant. So what I’ve done is I’ve created a buffer on that particular side of the property. It’s the entrance way and it’s actually the parking lot space not the actual winery space and it will be fully wooded or treed and screened from that residence which is really the side lot and rear lot of that particular home. PAT MOORE : That particular home happens to be about 40 feet, 30 feet from North Rd. and they actually used a vegetated buffer as a screen from the North Rd. ANTHONY SANNINO : So setting and addressing the Planning Board’s comment about not using the proposed building envelope we’ve deliberately moved it in comparison to the proposed church that’s being built so that the two building envelopes are now in alignment. So what we were doing is just pushing it further back so it would be further away from the nearest home. PAT MOORE : That is certainly an option but we’ll talk about the Planning Boards building envelopes because that in and of itself they have it was a three lot subdivision they have now waived and deviated from the conditions of that subdivision two out of the tree times. So we’ll go over that particular the deviations and the waivers that have and how they’ve done it procedurally further on my presentation. ANTHONY SANNINO : Correct and our present home on our existing lot that’s part of the same minor subdivision we had already moved that building envelope or waived that original envelope so we know that procedure has taken place in the same minor subdivision two times already. PAT MOORE : So let me continue with some of the other design factors to screen from residences. The building design provides a screening in and of itself in design from the southeast residence. The way it’s been designed the public area is on the west side. The service entrance is also on the west side of the building to minimize visual and audible activities and many of the existing mature cedar trees that are on the property can be relocated reused for additional mature screening so obviously the land will be put in agriculture and those cedar trees are very valuable immediate grown vegetated buffer that can be applied wherever the Planning Board through the site plan process feels is most suitable and that’s what site plan ? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting would require. Going on to the benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. The Sannino’s have acquired 9.74 or 8.94 acres depending on again how that calculation is done. There is the possibility of acquiring the difference once we know what it is up to about an acre from the church. The down side with that is that one it’s surplus land for the church. It is not the best agricultural land for the farming operation. It merely is being done to satisfy a numerical requirement. That option we think that in weighing the alternatives of variance is preferred again because it’s just you know if we’re just going to acquire pieces of property as a puzzle to meet the acreage requirements that’s really not the purposes behind the acreage requirement and AGS and markets it just doesn’t make sense. It also with respect to the acreage requirement of the ten acres being mindful of the fact that AGS and Markets only requires 7 acres for purposes of AG assessment and AGS and Markets in their opinion state that and as you know well from AGS and Markets previous dealings with the Town when a regulation impedes or inhibits an agricultural use it is deemed to be unreasonable and in this particular case the ten acres by the fact that we have to come up with these alternatives is per say on this application unreasonable. Another option that my client is reviewing and entertaining the gentleman in the front row has a residential parcel facing ANTHONY SANNINO : It’s on Alvah’s Lane and it would be on the east side of our combined lots. PAT MOORE : West side. ANTHONY SANNINO : No it will be on the east side of the yea PAT MOORE : East side. ANTHONY SANNINO : Yea correct it will be on the east side of the combined lots and it’s adjoining. PAT MOORE : It’s adjoining contiguous. The intention there and the reason that we think that that parcel would be suitable is the Sannino’s your mother Mr. Sannino’s mother is ready to retire and she’s ready to buy a property and build a property out here where best to do it but next to the family and the kids and the grandkids. They have been in discussion at least with his attorney with the gentleman’s attorney and there is some conversation. I would hate to make it as a condition of this variance only because then we can the negotiating power is a little skewed in that he will hear that you only get this variance if you get this parcel and therefore the price can certainly be affected. The balance of negotiation is certainly an issue CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait let me just ask you for clarification this adjacent parcel that you’re talking about is adjacent to this subject parcel which you just purchased and your residential parcel is that correct? ? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting ANTHONY SANNINO : Correct. I’m not sure if it touches both parcels but it definitely touches one. MEMBER HORNING : Where they would purchase the church and where this other parcel is. PAT MOORE : The church why don’t I identify where the church CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on speak into the mic. PAT MOORE : We’re showing the tax map number. ANTHONY SANNINO : So this is the church. MEMBER HORNING : Right. PAT MOORE : That is tax wait for the record that is tax map number 14.5 and it’s 3.7 acres according to the tax map. ANTHONY SANNINO : So the possible location for purchase of the church would be the rear location because the church has a proposed parking lot in the rear. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right and your house is someplace ANTHONY SANNINO : And we’re here. PAT MOORE : And the winery is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s the right of way on Alvah’s ANTHONY SANNINO : Correct. So if we would to say the church were in this location this building envelope was moved from the hundred foot setback so we have proposed exactly the same to keep the same distance plus respecting the only home which is the closest. This would be the buffer here that we’ve created and the entrance would be on this side so this would be a sixty foot buffer here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and what’s the setback from 48? ANTHONY SANNINO : It’s 160 feet. PAT MOORE : We had proposed 160 ANTHONY SANNINO : And we are admit able to whatever the Planning Board is looking for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s conforming whatever it is. ? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Either both is conforming correct yes. ANTHONY SANNINO : The possible purchase would be this lot right here. PAT MOORE : For the record that is lot 16.5 which is 2.2 acres according to the tax map on Alvah’s Lane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How would that impact the acreage of the farm property? PAT MOORE : Oh well let’s put that on the record cause that’s very important. ANTHONY SANNINO : This is also a vacant lot. We don’t know the possibility of that purchase either. It is a vacant lot. PAT MOORE : Let me put on the record a very important question because this is why I raise it on this at this hearing about the possibility of this purchase. The way the code reads again going back to how many acres does a winery need when you have a lot that you plan to build on a single family dwelling you’ve just exhausted the use of that property so what we would be facing is either through either by the church opposition or this particular lot is an additional procedure of a lot line change which not only is the Planning Board but the Health Department it is a bureaucratic process that is doable but time consuming and costly. With respect to this proposed lot it is it would be for the Sannino’s, Mr. Sannino’s mother’s house. They can use the additional acreage as farming for additional vines but because it’s not part of the ten acres without a lot line change it doesn’t strictly meet the definition that the code requires us to have so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s exactly what I wanted to have the record reflect cause they really ought to be seen as separate transactions. PAT MOORE : They are separate transactions and that’s the problem. We are willing to acquire the property but again you know as far as the benefit sought cannot be achieved by some method feasible for applicant to pursue for every action that they try to take there’s a adverse action that prohibits or creates an impediment to the addition of acreage. So the fact is that there is right now the Sanninos are farming vines of 23 how many acres? ANTHONY SANNINO : We’re farming on a total of 56 acres now. PAT MOORE : So they have 56 acres of vines but again our definition has a defect. The defect is it creates impediments to the winery operation. If this use were anything but a winery so let’s say you were growing cauliflower. ANTHONY SANNINO : I would say tomatoes we’re Italian. ? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Okay Italian tomatoes and making sauce in your home basement okay there would be no type of prohibitions or impediments that we’re seeing for winey uses. So that is something that quite frankly the AGS and Markets and our own and the farming community and your wine counsel all the entities in town that watch over the agricultural operations are seeing these inequities and these obstacles and something has to be done. Unfortunately it’s thrown on your lap to issue variances when quite frankly his winery is no different from a farm stand. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask you a quick question Pat? I don’t know if we can do this but is it would you want us to segment the decision and decide on the 10, 12, 14 or 16 first and then we get to everything else? PAT MOORE : Well we need to know MEMBER DANTES : Can we do that? Because it seems to me like we need to decide the 10, 12, 14 or 16 and then they’ll know how to handle the rest of the application cause without knowing the actual number how can they decide how many acres to buy or what they actually need. A.T.A. KIELY : Did the Building Department give you a clean cut answer or they said we don’t know 10, 12, 14, 16? PAT MOORE : No. It would be helpful wouldn’t it? A.T.A. KIELY : We should do an interpretation of that answer. PAT MOORE : Well I think that you need to bring the Building Department to give you some analysis of what how they look at it. You know it doesn’t make sense I mean how it’s been applied in the past is does not it reflects the traditional agricultural use of a property. It is not the 2 acre per use interpretation. ANTHONY SANNINO : I think they’re actually two separate issues. Ten acres for a farm operation or winery as it’s written should be ten acres in total regardless of what particular use is on it because a winery is a use but it should be part of that ten acre rule and not removed from that ten acre requirement. It’s like contradicting itself. If you’re asking for ten acres and we’re providing ten acres regardless of how many uses on it they’re all part of the same farm operation so I’m not sure why we would remove any acreage from that ten. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as the development right were in tact then you have a lot more options available as to how you use those ten acres and what you put on them. Do you see what I’m saying? ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : In this particular case we’re going to be talking about development right in another hearing but certainly in this case the simplified version exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes they have a lot more flexibility because they haven’t given away any rights. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I just ask a question? Are you referring to 43560 as an acreage calculation? ANTHONY SANNINO : Well that’s what’s up for interpretation. We have given you if you’re looking at 43560 then we are required to have an additional 1.28 acres and if we’re looking at 40,000 square feet then only need .27 acres. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : This has been one of my pet peeves all the way along. When you see the acreage stated on the tax map okay it is my understanding that the mappers in Riverhead that map these maps base it on 43560 okay and that’s PAT MOORE : Well that’s I’m not sure that’s true because when cause that was a pet peeve of mine and I’ve done several subdivisions of previously development rights sold parcels and the interesting thing is that let’s say that the development rights had been sold they may use the 43,000 figure but what they leave behind for subdivision is 1.8 let’s say it’s a 2 acre piece 1.8. If it’s a one acre piece they it doesn’t even say one acre. It’s what look at it backwards look at it the other way around that it maybe the town itself has acquired the acreage certainly to benefit the community in the square footage in the higher number to give the farming community additional funds but what they leave behind is not a full 43,000 square foot lot and I can give you off the top of my head two examples that I know of that had me perplexed when I was looking at the subdivision of post development rights sold parcels cause I was concerned that I wasn’t going to meet the bulk schedule requirement. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I’m only concerned about rural acreage now and that’s in making my statement to both of you and I mean does the survey coincide with the tax map is the question okay. Is it 43,560? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me try and clarify that because you’ve rightly pointed out when there is no definition in our Town code we go to the dictionary and I think it’s quite clear and I don’t think this Board is all that concerned with what the Planning Board does with subdivisions because we have to look at our zoning code alright so in our zoning code I’m looking at definitions and it tells us that we have to go to the dictionary when there is no code and there is nothing what there is in our code is a fact that wineries shall be on a parcel on which at least ten acres are devoted to vineyard or other agricultural purposes and which is owned by the winery owner. Now with regard to what the dictionary says okay here we go any of various ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting units of area specifically a unit in the United States and England equal to 43.560 sq. ft. So that’s how the dictionary is defining it. I think it’s quite clear. We don’t in our code. This is what we have to go by and we will have to look at that dimension when we look at the variance that’s required. So you actually have given that definition I just want to make sure I’m correct 8.94 acres. Is that correct? ANTHONY SANNINO : Correct. Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With your residential parcel and your agricultural parcel although I know you have vines on your residential but the total of the two merged parcels or adjoining parcels is they would have to be merged of course is 8.94 acres. So that’s the variance from the 10 acres that a winery has to be on per our code. So I don’t think we need to interpret it. I think it’s pretty clear that those are the facts that exist now. Quite frankly it’s becoming increasingly clear that a major overhaul of the way in which our code is somewhat lacking in examining what a contemporary wine operation is all about needs to be addressed. We are however not the legislative body that can do this. What we are seeing are increasing examples of the case that needs to be made before the Town Board that will somehow bring this code up to a different level of standard and that is not for this Board to do. So I think what we have to look at is clear now in terms of the one area variance that’s before us. I think you’ve addressed Planning Board’s concerns and the rest you can take up with them you know when you go to the site plan approval process. Let me see if there’s anything else. MEMBER DANTES : That means we’re going with ten acres I agree with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it’s there it may get changed at some point. There may be arguments that can easily be made for that. Certainly I think the agricultural advisory committee is on top of that and the bulk schedule that’s applied actually is a little bit different than what the AG and Markets actually says. Here we have ten acres for a winery it doesn’t really define uses okay and yet our bulk schedule says 80,000 sq. ft. in an AG zone per use but you have that in any case so I don’t think that’s the issue before our Board but that’s one more area in which we need to look at. There really is not an agricultural bulk schedule in our code. PAT MOORE : Right. That really would solve CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would go a long way toward clarifying what can and can’t be done but it’s not there yet. PAT MOORE : Would you like me to address the Planning Board comments for the record? A.T.A. KIELY : Hey Pat so is the Building Department saying if you have ten acres and you have a house on those ten acres bulk schedule says you have to have two acres for the house and now ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting you have to remove that from the calculations now you only have 8 acres so you’re deficient for the ten acres for the winery. Correct? Is that what they’re saying? PAT MOORE : I don’t know that he didn’t have an answer. He didn’t come to that ultimate conclusion. A.T.A. KIELY : Cause I’m trying to help in the fact that you know you could set a precedent for future winery owners who don’t have to go through this issue so we should try to do an interpretation at this point. I want to know PAT MOORE : I think that the Building Department wants clarification that a winery use will also incorporate what is what can be standard for a farm which is the farm house because most of the farmers live and work within the farm use whether it’s a winery or a tomato you know or even a farm stand. A.T.A. KIELY : But I know that’s traditionally but like Vineyard 48 they don’t live there on PAT MOORE : But they don’t have a house there’s no issue. A.T.A. KIELY : No, no, no again I just want to know what the Building Department is telling you. Are they saying that we have to deduct the two acres cause you already have a house there so now you don’t like say if you had the ten acres you bought land next to the parcel PAT MOORE : No I understand what you’re saying cause we talked about that. Does it mean that we need 12 acres. A.T.A. KIELY : Yea cause then you also in this case you have a B&B? PAT MOORE : As an accessory to the residential use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s not a separate use. A.T.A. KIELY : Okay so the house would be two acres. Now does that get deducted that’s the question. But that’s why if they took that stance I would like that to come before the Board so we can do an interpretation of it and PAT MOORE : I wouldn’t know without the you asking the Building Department because it was off the record. A.T.A. KIELY : I know but you told them they said it could be 12, 14, 16 and up. PAT MOORE : Yea well he was trying to explain to us how he tries to be consistent and his consistent interpretation ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting A.T.A. KIELY : His inconsistency. PAT MOORE : Well when it comes to the ten acre the winery use because if he was looking at any commercial use and you’ve done this lots of applications commercial applications where he takes the particular use be it an electrician, a plumber a different uses he allocates the each particular use deducted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Per bulk schedule. PAT MOORE : Yes applying the bulk schedule. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s a little bit different than an agricultural parcel. PAT MOORE : Well we agree but that’s not the way he’s ANTHONY SANNINO : I still look at them as two totally separate issues though. The bulk schedule and what a use requires is completely different than the definition that ten acres is required. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I’m going to adhere to the bulk schedule right now which is what they probably consult and more often than not they’re going to look at these permitted uses in the AC zone district and it’s going to say non-residential use as permitted is 80,000 sq. ft. and the one family dwelling is 80,000 sq. ft. So they’re going with the standard bulk schedule that says in the AC zone 80,000 sq. ft. per use and a dwelling is defined as a use and a winery would be defined as a use as well. So, you would need technically if you have a house there forget the B&B because it’s not relevant you would need 12 acres. PAT MOORE : Or four. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What do you mean or four? You mean four more. PAT MOORE : No, because the other interpretation would be the ten allows the winery. The bulk schedule addresses the acreage so you’d need two for the house, two for the winery, two for the agricultural operation not winery. Winery’s got the ten. So you got there are different ways of reading this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you need ten for the AG operation. ANTHONY SANNINO : Right that’s what I’m saying we have the ten. PAT MOORE : That’s what he’s saying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do slightly shy but you know it’s parsed. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : But we have the ten. Well no we don’t have the ten. We have 9 ANTHONY SANNINO : And the uses are a separate issue. They’re both met. The winery meets it’s 80,000 sq. ft. requirement and the house meets it but the ten acre requirement is the farm operation and we also meet that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In your application I believe it’s clear. I think that’s clear because you do have the merged acreage for the two uses at 80,000 sq. ft. per use. PAT MOORE : Right I don’t think that issue is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In this situation PAT MOORE : In this application right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So even if you apply the bulk schedule but then the overlay is are those deducted from the ten acres or are they internal to and incorporated within the ten acres. I think we’re finally clarifying the issue and it’s well we’re not going to do an interpretation unless it’s requested but what we can do is set precedential by the decision we can set a precedent. It’s cleaner if it’s an interpretation cause then the Building Department will know how to go forward in future. Until such time as the code is clearer. MEMBER DANTES : I think he needs to know before he spends all this money and buys land and tries to adjust his lot line. PAT MOORE : Yea we have to know well bottom line is we need a variance. Let’s make it simple. We need a variance. If we are able to acquire additional land we will do it because they really you know they the one residential lot for sure they want to acquire for the family and add you know grapes so MEMBER DANTES : I think we need to do two decisions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can make it very simple and we can just look at the variance pure and simple and then we can see if we can get before us a request for an interpretation. PAT MOORE : From who? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From you from any winery owner from any party who thinks this is an important issue to have clarified until such time as the code is clearer. PAT MOORE : Or maybe the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Department can make the request for us to interpret. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I think that that would be more helpful. I mean we would all come in and speak but it seems a penalty for any applicant to have to go through the legal and the time and the application fees and so on it sounds to me like there is a problem at the Building Department not a problem but a disagreement or difference of interpretations that could be applied from the Building Department so. A.T.A. KIELY : The problem is we can’t compel them. They would have to come in so you would have to ask them to do that. We can say the situation PAT MOORE : We’ll figure it out after. A.T.A. KIELY : No, no, no cause we can apprise them of the situation but again I can’t force them to ANTHONY SANNINO : Could we just clarify what our options are right now so that’s one option to get the Building Department here to give us their interpretation or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Quite honestly it doesn’t dramatically impact your application because you are looking at variance relief for an insufficient lot area. There’s nothing else before us. PAT MOORE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But if you want to look carefully and clearly at any action that this Board takes which has the possibility of setting a precedent which could be for the good or for the not so good it could have some unintended consequences that we don’t feel we’re all happy living with on the other hand it could also create a positive impact. In this case I think probably since that’s all that’s in the Notice of Disapproval that’s what we should be addressing which is the acreage. Make it simple but this testimony has brought out a couple of issues with regard to the code and the interpretation of the code within the Town. PAT MOORE : Yes, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we’ll just have to think this through as to what we can do. I don’t know we’ll have to talk as a Board as to whether or not it makes sense to try to go beyond the variance in this decision or whether we should approach this in a different way. PAT MOORE : I think the Building Department was satisfied if we listed all the uses that we would propose on the property and proceed with granting the variance and listing the uses that we have and propose to have on the property. They would be satisfied on our application. You can confirm that internally if that’s but that as to this application since they haven’t revised their Notice of Disapproval he said just make sure that we address the issue because he doesn’t ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting want to have to send us back on an issue that because we haven’t identified the existing and the proposed uses. That was just a recommendation from his office. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a question? I know the answer but I just need you to say it. Are all of these uses agricultural uses? ANTHONY SANNINO : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There’s no doubt in your mind that any of these uses might not be agricultural uses? ANTHONY SANNINO : Not at all. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay great. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if the Board has any other questions. George do you have questions? MEMBER HORNING : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No I’ve asked my questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so I’m going to see if there’s anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application. Please come forward at either podium and state your name for the record. ALEXANDER AQUINO : My name is Alexander Aquino. I’m here representing Mr. Kalipodis. Mr. Kalipodis owns the 2.2 acre residential parcel tax map 16.5. The reason that I’m here is it’s not to prevent the Sannino’s from having a vineyard. As a real estate agent vineyards have brought prosperity to real estate agencies, to homeowners. People come out to the North Fork to taste wine and so I would say I look forward to trying a glass of your wine once the vines are planted. Our chief concern is the result of a winery that’s in close proximity to multiple residential zoned properties. I just want to state first though however if acquiring the 2.2 acre residential parcel that my client is selling it is the issue you’re welcome to do that but at the price of $359,000 not $260,000 so there’s a clear MEMBER DANTES : That’s really not part of our discussion here. ALEXANDER AQUINO : Yea there’s a clear answer to that question. The ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need to talk about potential negative impacts. You can’t talk about costs. That seems to be forcing a hand that is not rather so we need to just have you address what you feel might be property values or something like that which would then affect the character of the neighborhood and so on. ALEXANDER AQUINO : Looking at the survey I see that the proposed sight for the winery is closer to Route 48 which is further away from the majority of the residential lots. The chief concern is the winery tasting room which is 2,768 sq. ft. from the records that I got from the Building Department the back patio faces my client’s property. Vineyard views are nice. People like to buy properties that have vineyard views but when people are coming out from Manhattan and to get peace and quiet they don’t want to come out on the weekend and hear loud music being played the entire time they’re there. I’d like to reference the Town Code Chapter 180 purpose of noise prevention. That states the existence of unreasonably loud unnecessarily disturbing or unusual noise within the town has become an increasingly significant problem during recent years. Such noise pollution which is prolonged unusual or unnatural in its time place and use is harmful to the peace, welfare, comfort, safety, convenience, good order and prosperity of the inhabitants of the Town of Southold. It is the public policy in finding of the Town Board that every person is entitled to noise levels that are not detrimental to life, health and the enjoyment of his or her property. Furthermore 180-6 standards specify that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. air born or amplified sound in excess of 65 decibels is not permitted. If you look at a decibel of chart normal conversation at 3 feet is between 60 and 65 decibels as is a normal piano practice. I think we can all agree that if you look at wineries like Marth Clara that has live music and live events not immediately surrounded by residences. The noise level that comes out of that winery is above 65 decibels. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m going to ask you to I’m just going to interrupt for one second. I think this is a little a priory in the following sense that’s actually a code enforcement operation and also that would be something that would be of concern to the Planning Board in terms of buffers and so on when you get to the site plan process. We all live with a noise code and sometimes it gets exceeded and sometimes it doesn’t and you can’t determine in advance whether or not a particular winery operation is going to be a problem. Depends on the special events they do or don’t have. It depends on the kind of marketing they do. There’s a huge range of options that you know wineries have available unless there are covenants and restrictions on them so indeed the impact of potential traffic and noise is something that we always want to think about when we grant variance relief. If there are ways that we can mitigate any potential adverse effect we will do so but I think it’s very premature to assume that there will be all kinds of inappropriate noise levels on that site. I just think that it’s you know problematic in the sense that it’s not a necessary given. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting ALEXANDER AQUINO : I didn’t mean to imply there would be inappropriate noise levels. The chief concern is really the property value (inaudible) as a result as unintended noise. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re very welcome. Is there anyone else? Please come forward and state your name. REVEREND FULFORD : My name is Reverend Cornelius Fulford. I’m the pastor of the First Baptist Church. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s the church that’s next door. REVEREND FULFORD : Yes. We have met with Anthony more than once to talk about the existing property that he trying to acquire and my church I had a meeting with my church and my trustees and we are willing to help out with whatever we can. The church is in process now of completing our new church and Anthony and the church and the trustees will sit down and map out the strategy of his property as well as ours. Our church even willing to sell him if he so desire an acre of land that is connected in the back to his land and so we trying to complete our church and we also trying to help anybody in the Town of Southold who want to come and build the Town up and do whatever they want and so in order for us to have a community that we all be pleased with and that’s the reason why even though our church have quite a lot of peoples but they are willing to assist and help out and also Anthony whatever he trying to do because he came and talked to us about what he planned on doing and how he planned on doing it and so I just came to day to let you know that we are in agreement and whatever we can do we are willing to do because we are planned on completing our church for this community not just First Baptist Church in Cutchogue it’s the community church for all of the Town of Southold and that’s what we’re trying to do and so God bless you and have him smile upon you and so I wanted to let you know the church the way the church feel about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you so much. Thank you for your testimony. Please come forward and state your name. MIKE FALCETTA : Mike Falcetta. I’m from Sparkling Pointe in Southold. I just want everybody to know if you don’t know Anthony and Lisa and as you’re going through this sort of consideration that if you’re questioning their style of business practice you should go visit the existing business that they already have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know it well. MIKE FALCETTA : Okay and it’s well run. They live here. Their kids go to school here. Anthony is an honest and upfront contractor as well he has his business here in Southold. This isn’t somebody that just comes out here on the weekends and just wants to pop up a farm. He’s ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting trying to continue and grow an already existing business which is something I think should be considered through this process as he’s been here for a long time. He continues to farm the land. He’s the guy out on the tractor in the morning and the guy putting in the concrete patio in somebody’s back yard in the afternoon. These are hardworking people. They run really really good businesses and we should encourage people and support people that are trying to run good businesses in this town. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony. I do have to say because it’s an obligation that this Board has we do know the Sanninos. They’ve been before us before and thank you for your character reference however again we are not allowed legally to personalize variances because once enacted they run with the land and anybody with whatever intent or business model could come in and operate a very different way because everything is in place for them to do so by virtue of the variances that were granted. So while we certainly appreciate personally I think all board members your comments I need to let the record reflect the fact that our decision cannot reflect personal knowledge of anyone or bias in favor or against for that matter. We have to remain absolutely neutral. Okay is there anyone else. Come forward please and state your name and spell your last name. FRANCIS SLEZAK : My name is Francis Slezak. I live on Alvah’s Lane and my property abuts the Sannino’s property on the north and on the west side. I’d like to give you my statement. I’d like to give you a map because I will ask you to (away from microphone handing out paperwork to the Board) First of all I would like to say the Town of Southold should not permit a tasting room and winery at this location on Alvah’s Lane and CR48. Not only because it doesn’t meet the town code of having at least ten acres. MEMBER DANTES : Ma’am which property is yours? FRANCIS SLEZAK : I am I think it’s 16.2. My property abuts his service road which from what I understand when you’re talking about acreage this is a flagged lot. It’s my understanding you’re not supposed to count the entrance as part of the acreage but that’s for you to determine but that was my understanding and I would like to say at this point it’s very annoying having no buffer there on that lot. Traffic goes up and down that road when they’re drinking, when they have their events and it’s a totally upsetting situation but I wasn’t planning to go into this but now because I hear certain things I feel it’s necessary I say that. I think the town should not permit a tasting room not only because it doesn’t meet the town code of having at least ten acres but because permitting so directly and negatively affects both citizens and community. People work hard for long hours every day to afford their homes. They look forward to its comfort from the stress of today’s changing times. It should not have a tasting room and winery in such close proximity to their homes. To bring the ongoing public into their back yards daily ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting yearly disturbances of the people, cars, buses, trucks. I’ve already had buses from Adelphi going up their service road from Alvah’s Lane. Public and music events, maintenance noises and pollution and tours should not be imposed upon our residents. There is no harmony in having a tasting room and winery at this proposed location as it is mostly surrounded by families. If you look at the map you’ll see the location of the homes and a church with its local parishioners who have established their own cohesiveness as a small community and seek a safe haven from the intruding businesses that bring unlimited public populations and disturbing activities and events that directly diminish their precious quality of life. Values of surrounding homes would depreciate and more untold problems would occur such as lighting the tasting and winery which most likely would invade the abutting properties as do glaring lights from parking. Let me tell you the trees don’t buffer very much sound and I don’t even have any trees of theirs buffering on my by the service road. The contiguous Sannino property now their residence their five bedroom bed and breakfast their parking lot and entrance road and vineyard under the previous owner was denied a tasting room and winery by the Town of Southold. The two contiguous properties not being ten acres may very well possibly abuse the properties natural resources serving so much of the public and we need to protect our land and environment. Cars and traffic may even traverse from the proposed tasting room and winery property to the present Sannino contiguous property to their bed and breakfast to their parking lot to even exist on Alvah’s Lane extending their disturbances and cause dangerous traffic situations. Entrancing and exiting a tasting room and winery on CR 48 at this proposed location may well present a dangerous traffic situation as the traffic flow on CR 48 travels at a significantly higher speed than the east bound cars making U-turns at Alvah’s Lane to visit this proposed location which is just if you look at the map you’ll see it’s just a short distance from Alvah’s Lane. Cars also entering onto CR 48 from Alvah’s Lane feed into this traffic of those changing lanes decreasing speeds to enter the tasting room proposed location as other cars are increasing speeds. Confusion and congestion and unsafe traffic situations may occur. Only a short distance away from this location on CR 48 four souls lost their lives making U-turn after visiting the wineries. We also don’t need another winery at this location as there is another winery right across CR 48 at Alvah’s Lane. We have laws that are significantly important to protect the community, its people and the precious land. There should not be a tasting room and a winery at this proposed location. The laws substantiate that and the laws should be upheld without reservation. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Please come forward. ALLIE TUTHILL : Hi my name is Allie Tuthill. I was hired by the Long Island Wine Counsel about ten months ago to help in changing the perception of this region to that of a more quality driven incredibly driven wine region. The reputation as it stands and I think you’ve heard from a few people here is that of a very entertainment driven wine region with music and other types ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting of events and activities that tend to draw a lot of noise and traffic. That is not a mandatory schedule for a winery and you know as a result we’ve seen you know a clientele come through this region not as very driven by that entertainment model. We are as a counsel and as a region taking the steps to really reinforce a different message for this region and that is of community and quality and sustaining the wine region out here through dialing up the authentic nature of that business and really telling the story as wine making as a part of our history and heritage in agriculture. That is a very different approach for this region. How we’re going to do that is by investing in education for our members so that they can start to deliver a more quality focused experience here but also focusing our promotional attention towards wineries that are delivery a more education focused experience of which Anthony and his wife are proposing. They’ve had that business model they have that existing right now and that is what they’re proposing in the future. You’re going to see the entire counsel shift towards that type attention and promotion. We think it’s very important because the only way we’re going to sustain as a region and be able to grow in a really authentic way is by making sure that we’re rooted in the community that we’re supporting one another and that we start to find ways to work better with our towns and with our governments to make sure that the people coming out here are getting (inaudible) but the right impression of the region and starting to take it more seriously. So I think why I wanted to speak was because we need more people like Anthony we need more businesses like Anthony’s to be able to focus our attention to really celebrate them in our hopes to really shift the tide and to show other members of our wine making community that that is a sustainable and profitable business model as well with the hopes of really taking the attention and the consumer focus away from the entertainment models and reinforcing that of quality and wine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments but I must say that it doesn’t specifically address the variance application before us and in the interest of time we really need to move on. We’re running quite late at this point. That’s interesting to hear and certainly may wind up benefitting our community as a whole over time but that remains to be seen yet and it’s really marketing and has little to do with this variance. Is there anyone else? Please come forward and keep your comments as focused on this application as you can. ERIC KIEL : No problem my name in Eric Kiel. I’m a resident of Mattituck and a neighboring property owner. I have the nursery greenhouse business to the north of Anthony to the Sanninos and I just wanted to say that I have no objection to their variance and hope you will approve it. MEMBER DANTES : Which lot is that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s adjacent to the right of way. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting ERIC KIEL : It’s I think 8.6 acres directly north of. The other thing I was gonna just very briefly mention is that the Building Department has acted in the past sort of arbitrary in their whether they’ve applied bulk schedule requirements or not in these kind of situations I think that’s where the confusion is probably coming from but very reasonably they have approved winery permits on properties with less than two acres without you know development in other words development sold property that had a one acre building lot was granted a winery permit and clearly they didn’t have two acres under the bulk schedule requirements so they clearly just looked at the whole parcel together so I think that you know for the purposes of this as you said you’re only making a determination on the variance anyway but I think you should approve it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Yes please. ROGER ALVAREZ : Hello my name is Roger Alvarez. I am a neighbor of Anthony Sanninos. I live at 7205 Alvah’s Lane. I have 200 feet of frontal with his vineyard and basically I want to echo everything else everyone has said in favor of the tasting room and I just want to go on the record as saying that I support him wholeheartedly and hope you guys grant them the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much. Please come forward. ALF SUMMERSTED : Hello my name is Alf Summersted 7405 Alvah’s Lane. I abut Mr. Sanninos property and I want it to be known that I am against this tasting room. Let’s face it the local people here in the Town of Southold they’ve had it with these wineries. With all of the congestion that comes on the weekends. Limos, buses, hipsters, and drunks on the road you can’t go out on the weekends. You take your life in your hands. We don’t need to have any more wineries in the Town of Southold and promote more drinking and driving. What we need is less of it especially if a place doesn’t meet the requirements plus the Sanninos already have a tasting room in Peconic in a nice old barn there. Why do they need another one? What do they need two? So for many reasons and increased traffic unsafe roads I don’t think this is a good idea. And it’s not a good idea to have a church next to a winery. In fact there’s another church two properties down so you have two churches and then you have a winery let’s face it it’s not a winery it’s a wine bar. All they’re doing is promoting drinking. Anybody that tells you otherwise they don’t know what’s going on out here so for these reasons I oppose this thing and I hope you’ll do right thing by the people of Southold and refuse it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Anyone else? PAT MOORE : Just a quick clarification this gentleman that spoke is also part of the 16.2 lot I just want to make sure that that’s on the record. With respect I want to put on the record two items addressing the objections. First one being that the winery license there is no prohibition against of placement of farm wineries within any proximity distance to a church and we have an ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting opinion of counsel for the NYS liquor authority which I’ll put on the record for the Board. The other item I assume or you should have in your file is the proposed location and site plan of the Sannino winery. The object ants are north by about a thousand feet from the property line the northerly property line of the lot 14.6 they are in fact adjacent to the or partly adjacent to the parcel the 5.2 acre parcel the tax map 14.4 which is the home the Sannino’s home so there is an issue withstanding with respect to proximity but nonetheless as far as the issues they raised with general objections not specific objections to this particular use and I do want to include in your record the proposed location of both parking lot and the proposed winery and the fact that the balance of the property is going to be in proposed wine excuse me vines so also we have in your packet the interior layout which incorporates a wine education area and the standard winery making (away from microphone) I would in the interest of time I will put on record for you after the hearing a the written response to the Planning Board’s comments because none of the comments that were raised by the Planning Board really to not support the winery is founded in neither facts accurate facts or the law with respect to this particular application and I put that on the record but I know your I know we’ve got several hearings today and I’m assuming you’d like to move on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We would indeed. What I’m going to poll the Board on is whether or not we should close subject to receipt of additional information or whether we should adjourn to the Special Meeting so that when you submit additional information or if anyone else wants to submit any written information of any sort we can examine that and then decide to close. That would be in two weeks. PAT MOORE : Just for clarification cause I had this happen before is the Special for taking testimony? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. PAT MOORE : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Never is. We don’t record it and if in fact after we evaluate everything and we read what you’re submitting or anyone else will still have the right to submit whatever they wish in writing we will decide at the Special Meeting two weeks from today whether we have no further questions we just close the hearing and proceed to make a decision. If we have additional questions we will adjourn to the December Regular Meeting and have another public hearing where once again we’ll record it and testimony will become part of the record but at the Special Meeting it’s open to anyone who wishes to listen but we do not take testimony there. It’s not recorded and it’s not part of our record. You can listen to our deliberation. Hearing is for fact finding alright. The Special Meeting is for deliberation on those facts. Okay everybody clear on that? I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting Special Meeting on November I think it’s the 15 th wait let me make sure I have the I think it’s the 19 th two weeks from today. There’s a motion is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I gave you a second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6860 – STEVEN and ANDREA KOLYER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Steven and Andrea Kolyer # 6860. This was adjourned and we have a letter requesting that the application be withdrawn and because it was noticed I have to you know proceed with opening it and closing it. So is there anyone here who wished to address the application? Okay hearing no further comments or questions I’ll make a motion to accept the request to withdraw the application. 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) ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6675 - 7850 MAIN ROAD, LLC d/b/a THE BLUE INN at NORTH FORK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Next application before the Board is for 7850 Main Road, LLC doing business as the Blue Inn at North Fork that’s #6675. This is a re-hearing for Board resolution based on condition #13 and ZBA amended decision dated September 4, 2014. This is a request for extending the special exception permit that was granted. Is there someone here that will address the application? MARY O’BRIEN : Hi I’m Mary O’brien. We’re just requesting that you would consider renewing our permit without having to come back each year. We have not had any complaints and we’ve been following everything you have requested from us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we have the decision before us and I’m just going to go over these conditions. Again 13 was to give you an opportunity to have one season of operation with the restaurant that was open for the public to make sure that there were no adverse impacts on neighbors. That was basically the concern and so far this is a special exception limited the operation to seasonal restaurant open to both guests and non-guests for the motel inn and it is to remain accessory to the principal motel in use and is null and void if the motel inn use is discontinued. You are continuing to operate the motel yes? MARY O’BRIEN : Well we close seasonally but yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea okay. The restaurant is not open at this point. MARY O’BRIEN : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing has been enlarged on the existing footprint? MARY O’BRIEN : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of the restaurant building or the attached patio? MARY O’BRIEN : No nothing has been changed. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. You have not had more than 48 patrons in the restaurant at any given time both inside and outside? MARY O’BRIEN : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. You have obtained well let’s see just guests of the hotel are using your swimming pool? ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MARY O’BRIEN : Correct. Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No special tour groups have arrived by bus? MARY O’BRIEN : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Parking for guests of the hotel and the accessory restaurant have been on site? MARY O’BRIEN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a parking attendant during hours of operation? MARY O’BRIEN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No signs placed on the property advertising that the restaurant on the premises is open to the public? MARY O’BRIEN : No we do have the one that’s been there since we opened. It just says restaurant hotel restaurant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Restaurant was only open in past season on Friday, Saturday and Sunday from the end of June until Labor Day? MARY O’BRIEN : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The temporary 3 ½ foot high wood wall and temporary plastic curtains and netting were installed at the end of June and removed after Labor Day? MARY O’BRIEN : We decided not to put that up so we didn’t have that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You didn’t bother okay. You got site plan approval from the Planning Board. MARY O’BRIEN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They did put two conditions on it. Just let the record reflect that you have to comply with the Towns noise ordinance and that access to Old Orchard Lane is prohibited Friday through Sunday when the restaurant is in operation. I presume how do you handle that? MARY O’BRIEN : We have the gate that was we just keep it closed all the time so no one goes out that way. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright and let’s see that’s about it. Yea it has to do with coming back to review it. Were there any violations that you’re aware of? MARY O’BRIEN : Nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No code enforcement issues? No one came there and any neighbors raising any objections that you’re aware of? MARY O’BRIEN : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it’s pretty quiet? MARY O’BRIEN : Yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from the Board? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea were you able to pretty much close the restaurant at the agreed upon time at night? MARY O’BRIEN : Absolutely we actually closed earlier than that. We have to be closed by eleven so I had everything done by 10:45. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay. I’ll be honest with you Mary I did speak to code enforcement and they told me that they had no nothing in writing that required them to come out and see you. So you are correct in that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Nope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George any questions? MEMBER HORNING : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No I don’t have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserving decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SHCNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. What we will do Mary is write an amended decision so everything is all in one place indicating that the hearing has taken place and that the Board is satisfied with the conditions being met and we’ll extend indefinitely the Special Exception permit as long as it continues to operate under the terms of these conditions. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6828 – RICK NAPPI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Nappi # 6828. This is re- opened by Board Resolution. This is a request for variances alright I’m going to have to read it all. Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article XXII Section 280-116B and the Building Inspector’s December 3, 2014 Amended September 22, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit which was originally for additions and alterations and it now deemed to be a demolition of an existing single family dwelling and construction of a new single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum single yard setback of 10 feet 3) less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet located at 5218 Peconic Bay Boulevard (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Laurel. Originally the Zoning Board granted relief for additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling with a front yard setback of 33.5 feet where the code requires 35. A single side yard setback at 8.5 feet where the code requires 10 and a bulkhead setback of 55 where the code requires 75 feet. This was in part based upon the fact that this was a pre-existing non-conforming location that had been there since prior to zoning. So Mike would you like to take it from here? MIKE KIMACK : Yes, Mike Kimack for the applicant. Originally you are correct. The 6828 permit was issued for a partial demolition I think it was taking down the roof building a second floor and removing some of the first floor exterior walls and interior walls as all things happen when they got into it the contractor discovered termites which is not your concern but took the ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting whole first floor down. Under the code that basically defines it as a demolition. When it was stopped basically the new house had been constructed on the foundation. The foundation was not removed nor was the first floor deck. So the setbacks that were recorded are still the same setbacks. I had taken pictures of the foundation and had it included in my application so that you can see that the existing foundation with those setbacks are the ones that he built upon. He did not move it any place. The only difference was that they took more of that house down. Right down to the decking than originally had been intended in the original permit. He framed it up on that existing foundation and it sits to this day waiting for your variance hopefully and I’ve gotta go back to the Trustees also after you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I was going to say I’m sure you’re going to have to go back and get an amended MIKE KIMACK : Yes I do. I’m not quite sure what else I can add except that the difference between 6828 and this is simply that the all of the building had been taken down to the deck as opposed to the roof and I think at that time they had contemplated about taking down about half of the first floor and try to work with the rest of it to build it back up. As it turned out from the damage they found they could not save it at least they took it all down to the first deck. That would be the difference between what we had applied for originally and basically what we’re now amending our application for the demolition. It was not a demolition of the deck or the foundation that remains as it had originally been in the 6828 permit. The same setbacks are in place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so it’s on existing foundation and deck? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. No ground work had changed at all in terms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : These are the same exact plans and elevations that were stamped approved in our original variance? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Ken questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea sure. You said there was termite damage. Who determined the termite damage? MIKE KIMACK : Not me. I would imagine that the contractor such like that it’s difficult to be fair with this you know one person gets the permits which is me the architect then works with the contractor who works with the homeowner and quite frankly sometimes unfortunately more than not they don’t read the content of the permit exactly what is the extent of work they can ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting do basically and of course the contractor is hired he comes in and looking at it from a fair point of view said gees I can’t save this stuff I’m going to get rid of it and from his mind he’s saying that’s a good thing. Well from the permits mind it’s not a good thing cause it wasn’t written that way which means when I now as I handle in the future basically quite frankly it has nothing to do with this particular one I’m doing corrective work with what I’m doing going forward that I’m gonna take a look at the houses myself and I determine is a demolition required I’m going to write it up that way so I don’t run into this. This is the second or third time this has happened to me. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay I mean the question is who determined the termite damage? MIKE KIMACK : I would imagine the contractor. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : and so I guess the termite damage was in the exteriest of walls? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Not in the deck? You said you saved the deck. MIKE KIMACK : No, no the decking the first floor MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea well that was made of wood right? MIKE KIMACK : That was made of wood it was just exterior CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would of thought the joists would of gone first. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : There was found to be no termite damage in that? MIKE KIMACK : The deck as far as I know the deck was not touched. They just took the first floor down. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So it wasn’t down to the sill plate? MIKE KIMACK : I asked Mike Verity what the definition of what demolition was because it was confusing as he explained it to me he said look Mike if you got a thousand square foot footprint I don’t care where there’s a first or second floor if you take down three quarters of the first floor whether it’s exterior walls or interior walls I consider that a demolition. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so I’m just trying to get to this termite issue here. So it could have been that there were no termites they just took it down to the deck and cause it was probably much easier to build than to deal with ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : You know Ken from a framing point of view it might have been much easier to build back up again and MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay but there really was I mean if there was termite damage in (inaudible) walls I mean I’m not a contractor but I would say well let’s redo the deck too because I don’t want to build a brand new house on a wood deck that may have termite damage. I’m just saying that. MIKE KIMACK : Well historically I had another one basically like this. It was Pallante that I had done that come back to you and it wasn’t a full hearing I think we did an administrative that one had damage to the exterior walls without the deck and I saw that one basically. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : In my opinion that (inaudible) MIKE KIMACK : It may not be termites it might have been black ants because black ants will get in any wetting of the wood black ants will get in there right away and cause a deterioration. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So there was really no recording of the or any picture taking or anything like that. MIKE KIMACK : No as I understand the inspector showed up he looked at he recognized that there was all new framing on the first floor. He looked at the permit and recognized the permit did not reflect that and he called a stop work order which threw us back into your good graces and the Trustees. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And okay was well the foundation wasn’t raised cause you used the same decking. Okay so you’re maintaining the same setbacks that was previously applied for? MIKE KIMACK : Nothing’s changed. Everything is the same as it was originally applied yeah. Just amending it cause the language did not reflect a total take down of the first floor exterior and interior. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay I’m satisfied. I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George. MEMBER HORNING : So looking at the phots that you submitted. MIKE KIMACK : The foundation photos George? MEMBER HORNING : Well no both but the foundation photos you really can’t see what’s on top but looking at the building photos this is all new work isn’t this correct? ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yes. MEMBER HORNING : And what happened was you applied for renovations and additions the project got moved along all of a sudden the whole thing got torn down to the foundation and then rebuilt and then somewhere along the stop work order came into play? MIKE KIMACK : If I had taken these pictures and there was no violation those pictures would be the same reflecting what would have been done if he had taken the roof down and left a good portion of the exterior walls out because it would require all new siding, reframing interior all new siding and windows so George the pictures would look the same whether or not there was a demolition or not between what should have been done originally in the original permit #6828 and what we’re asking for now. That building would look exactly the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What concerns me is you don’t normally see termite damage that close to the water. What and you normally may see black ants but you may not see MIKE KIMACK : You know it could have been either one. I wasn’t there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What you usually see is dry rot okay and of course that’s of course the reason why they wrapped it with (inaudible) now cause that’s going to prevent that. Could you find out please from the contractor if it was termites you know dry rot or basically you know just so that we know what the situation is because if situations come across like this again I mean this house is extremely close to the water the bulkhead. MIKE KIMACK : Dry rot might have been a possibility Gary it’s you know I’m familiar with it. I’ve built about 200 homes in my time. Not in this climate up in the mountains so I’m not that familiar with the kind of humidity factors although I’m familiar with a lot of the condensation aspects of what causes deterioration but I’ll yea I’ll get an answer whether it was one or the other. I know in the Pallante case it happened to be termites and that was right near the water. So it’s one of three but the end result is the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a demolition the builder obviously took it down. MIKE KIMACK : He took it down and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And unfortunately it’s probably good building practice. Why in the world would you want to put good money into garbage? But the way our code is written this tear down law is simply not working. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : The only vulnerability that they face basically I have to look at if it is a tear down if the Town not from your prospecting but from the Trustees perspective if they considered a demolition tear down they consider it a vacant lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know. MIKE KIMACK : Which means that that foundation they may require be moved back. Now in this case there isn’t a practicable possibility that occurring because you got a violation in the front the back and the sides in terms cause it’s a small lot anyway but there may be circumstances in the future that if that does occur and the Trustees pick it up they may say well look if we consider it a demolition take your foundation down and kick it back twenty feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well so could we. MIKE KIMACK : So could you too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Obviously our intent or our obligation is to grant the minimum variance possible that’s justified and to create more conformity wherever we can. The reason people don’t like things to be called tear downs is because then you start from scratch it’s a clean slate so we would probably say straighten it out on the lot create a greater side yard and so on. The question in my mind and again this brings again important questions before this Board that don’t just affect this application. MIKE KIMACK : It goes beyond. It’s more relative that the general approach and when I’m doing my applications in the future now when I’m looking at something like this I have the technical expertise to go out there and make my own judgement and determination. But if I can do it as a demolition without affecting the possibility of putting it in jeopardy of moving everything away and such like that I would tend to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a very tough position to be in to see a house virtually completed you know in which there was a lot of work and money invested and to say take it down and start over. I mean you know I certainly trust your integrity. This is not in any way suggestion that there was a conscious manipulation on anybody’s part. I think this is what happens in the field. MIKE KIMACK : I think the contractor from good practices of a contractor they look and then say gees what are you saving this for take it down. Especially if you’re sistering especially a 2 by 6 construction go and do a 2 by 4. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course then you got to sister everything up. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : You have to sister it. You have to expand your (inaudible) then sister up your 2 by 6’s and expand your plates. I’ve done that. MEMBER DANTES : I mean to your same point they’re also asked to warranty their work so they have to meet a certain professional standard which you can’t always (inaudible) MIKE KIMACK : That’s what your inspectors are there to do. MEMBER DANTES : The only question I had if you can give us maybe a letter from someone who is there saying this was the problem with the wall. This is why we had to replace it. MIKE KIMACK : Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s what Gerry is asking. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah I could get it for the record. I can get it into the file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Part of me wants to look at this in a simplest way as possible. If you had come before us with a demolition with a request to build on existing foundation would those variances been granted. MIKE KIMACK : That’s a fair question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I think it can be you know actually given the circumstances now and the need to move forward we have to ask. MIKE KIMACK : I would have been uncomfortable if that was the case in this particular case because of the size of the lot and the fact that you’ve already got you know the non-conforming situation to begin with there really wasn’t much you can play with in terms of making a recommendation to move it because the moving any direction simply diminished or created the same violations that originally was in place. So that would not have necessarily CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And more land disturbance too. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah if you had a bigger piece of property that would be something else. If you had one violation then you could move it over and eliminate violations entirely that’s what your responsibilities are. You’re here to minimize your violations and your variances if you could within practical means. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We actually did have one (inaudible) coming back to some of you may remember up on the North Rd. in Southold where it was a bluff setback and it was additions and alterations and suddenly one of us drove by and said woops there’s nothing there all gone. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Another woops huh? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what we wound up doing was and they were building on the existing foundation we actually asked them to remove and fill in part of the existing foundation and extend it landward. MIKE KIMACK : On the other side basically just kick it back yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that it was set back but it was I think that was the only variance and it was that one. MIKE KIMACK : Well you were looking at the inevitability of vulnerability to the side so I mean that’s part of your responsibility too. I’m going to play in future ones I’ll play a larger role in making sure that I don’t want to get this again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Anything else from the Board? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing wait subject to receipt of a letter from the contractor clarifying the process by which demolition occurred. 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) ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6891 – JUJAX PARTNERS, LLC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is Jujax Partners, LLC # 6891. This is a request for variance from Article II Section 280-9A&B and the Building Inspector’s Notice of Disapproval dated September 8, 2015 based on a building permit application for lot recognition at, 1) subject parcel is not a recognized lot located at 1975 Sound View Ave. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Mattituck. Hi Pat. Let’s see what we got here. Okay well I have a bunch of notes here but why don’t I just let you carry on and explain you know the title that went from Joseph Krupski and Mary Krupski to Gerald Weber PAT MOORE : This actually is pretty straight forward. This is more of a technical issue and the way the code is written with respect to lot recognition and the lot recognition section of the code says that a lot can’t get a building permit it isn’t recognized in this town if the identical lot was created by deed and recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk’s Office it says on well on or before would mean that it would be recognized so on or before June 30, 1983 and it conformed to the minimum lot requirements of the bulk schedule at the time the lot was created. What we have here is a 3.7 acre parcel on Long Island Sound which was owned by the Krupski family and it was owned by the Krupski family since the 30’s well earlier since early 1900’s. In the 30’s the in “33 the town laid out the highway known as Sound View Rd. Sound View Ave. in Mattituck and at that time the parcels that ran along the sound were bisected from the farm parcel the larger tracks. Many of the farms were split at that time by the in lieu of condemnation it was a cooperative venture of putting in of laying out the roads and what would of have ordinarily happened since the 30’s is that some of these parcels would have been transferred so therefore a deed would have been recorded certainly by 1983. The issue here is that the Krupski’s held on to this property and whether by estates or other it was not recorded by way of a deed until the Krupskis sold the parcel to one of the other Krupskis and that was in 1996. I put the liber and page in my paperwork and that ultimately that parcel went to Katherine M. Krupski. Thereafter the parcel was conveyed to non-family members of Gerald Weber in 2002 and then ultimately to Jujax most recently. What my concern or part of the process when I represent an owner who’s buying a piece of property I always do the due diligence the record of how did this lot get created to make sure that we don’t have any technical flaws. Being around the block many years here I know that there’s all kinds of things that can happen and I just want to be sure that my clients can very easily go to the Building Department and get a building permit. We certainly expected that here but then when we read the lot recognition the only way my client could get any assurance that it was buildable would be to actually go through the expense of getting Health Department approval, submitting the survey with the Health Department and a set of construction drawings for a house on this parcel when in fact my client had really no intention ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting of building for the next couple of years. So that’s why we are here. We need to get an interpretation or an acknowledgment from this Board which is the finding authority for the Town that this lot is in fact recognized. Common sense tells us that this lot of course is recognized. It exceeds the lot size of two acres. It was created bisected by the town’s own actions in the 30’s it just doesn’t match the language of the code so that is why we’re here and certainly answer any questions that you might have. Any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m looking. I think we might have to I don’t know I think we might have to do something it’s easy to construct the history that you’ve described and it’s logical to suggest that that’s a buildable lot. PAT MOORE : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we need to look at is the fact that when it comes to specific dates within the code whether it’s County or whatever we don’t have a lot of wiggle room. It is what it is. You know it’s not like a variance that you can so I have to figure out maybe talk to Stephen about it or something how we actually say even though it was not filed by the deadline that was required which was you know before ’93 and certainly existed long before ’93, ’83 sorry it was actually not recorded until August 21 of 1996 is what your application said and PAT MOORE : Right well it could certainly be I was hoping you’d come back to me and say you know layman’s term more official but a nicer way Pat you’re an idiot this is a pre-existing lot. It meets the code requirement and we would recognize it as a lot if it certainly if the Building Department got an application it would not even ask beyond the does it meet the size and can you it wouldn’t even come to you when the Building Department just issue a building permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So in conflict with the that’s so counter intuitive it’s you see what I’m saying. PAT MOORE : Well the problem is the code is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if you spend all the money to build on it then it’s a building lot but if you don’t then it’s not a building lot. PAT MOORE : I am trying to just create a record that you know when all of us are no longer around that there is something in writing that will give this and future building inspectors the comfort that of course this is a recognized lot and to find otherwise would be illogical. The code the when it was adopted when it came up with that definition this lot was already created so in a sense you could argue that it’s pre-existing to even the code definition of lot recognition so there are various ways that you could address this. Somehow I just needed to be cleaned up it could be by interpretation by you know rejection of the need for this application or merely ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting saying that it’s a pre-existing lot you know a lot created in 1933 by the Town’s own actions and predates the definition of lot recognition in your code that constitutionally that would protect me so. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : When they built the road was that like a taking by the town of those property owners or was it PAT MOORE : The laying out of a highway can be done either by condemnation or by cooperation and what happens is like if you if the town took a road in a subdivision the owner would convey the title to that road. In this case in 1930’s they went around to the different homeowners the farm families along that road and got the laying out of the highway signed off by the property owner so MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Why do you think the purpose of that was so that they could have access to multiple waterfront parcels to build homes. PAT MOORE : No I think it was just the laying out of highways in the town. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I think it was dual access to the farmland on the opposite side. PAT MOORE : To the north side of land. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : To the north side those farms were so long and they’re all subject to weather conditions MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh so you didn’t have to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea go all the way out the other way. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Or trespass on your adjoining properties. PAT MOORE : Or go through your property just to access the northerly side of your land. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : As I said to the Board twice and I second it today again that land became a firing range for the government and in WWII they basically put targets out into the Sound. There was a barracks there which was taken down by I think Henry Drum owned that farm a portion of it anyway and I think he finally just got disgusted and took the barracks down but that’s what not necessarily this lot but the rest of that open land (inaudible). PAT MOORE : We’re going to have to pickle your brain because you’re the history. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Would that be almost like an easement over the properties? PAT MOORE : Oh no it’s permanent title. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It’s a voluntary CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The hardship was created by the town. PAT MOORE : Yea exactly. Well if parcelized properties condemnation would of created de facto lots in this case I don’t have a condemnation I’ve got a voluntary MEMBER DANTES : Do you have a title insurance policy on this property? PAT MOORE : Oh yea. MEMBER DANTES : Does that answer our questions? PAT MOORE : No. It’s a zoning issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh what a long day we have. PAT MOORE : It seems like I get every property that has a questionable issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look I think the argument has been made. This parcel pre-existed the definition of the lot recognition in the code. PAT MOORE : Yea I thought that was the simplest answer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close this hearing reserve 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) ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6892 & # 6890 – PAUL ROMANELLI, CONTRACT VENDEE (Robert and Carol Bohn) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here’s what I’m going to do. We have two applications before the Board for the same piece of property so just to make life a lot easier I’m going to open both of them at the same time alright. So this is for Paul Romanelli contract vendee Robert and Carol Bohn # 6892. This is a request under Section 280-146D for an interpretation of the Town Code Article VIII, Section 280-38A Permitted Uses appealing the Building Inspector’s September 15, 2015 Notice of Disapproval applicant’s business Suffolk Security is not a contractor’s business located at 50300 NYS Route 25 (aka Main Rd.) (corner of Jockey Creek Drive) in Southold. The other application for the same applicant is # 6890. This is a request for variance from Article VIII Code Section 280-38A (Permitted Uses) and the Building Inspector’s September 15, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to convert an existing legal non- conforming real estate agent office to a contractor’s business at contractor’s business is not a permitted use located at 50300 NYS Route 25 (aka Main Rd.) (corner of Jockey Creek) in Southold. Now this second one that I just read off is a request for a use variance for non- permitted contractor’s yard in that zone district. The previous one is for an interpretation or an overturning of the Building Inspector’s decision that it is not a permitted use in that zone. I think we should probably talk about that first because clearly if the Board is so inclined to agree that it is a permitted use then the other use variance just goes away. PAT MOORE : Correct yes agreed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what do we have here. Alright well we do have quite a bit in the file and we know that regardless site plan approval is going to be required. We have a document from Mr. Romanelli actually clarifying the nature of his license and so why don’t you tell us what you think we should know about this application. PAT MOORE : Yes thank you. Patricia Moore on behalf of Suffolk Security Systems and Paul Romanelli who is here with me. Carol Bohn is the owner of the property and she is here as well. Mr. Romanelli is interested in purchasing this corner property for Suffolk Security Systems. I‘ve given you a great deal of written description of the use he operates the fact that it is primarily a business that operates by phone. It is computer centralized station in New Jersey so there is no contractor use at this property. Suffolk Security we provided you with the licensing that’s required for this business and it is akin to other professional licenses and limited higher electrical licenses but it is not a contractor he does not build anything on the premises. He doesn’t store anything other than small computer modules that may be necessary. I have Mr. Romanelli here specifically if you have questions since I have given you already in writing I don’t want to just you know recite what you’ve already seen in writing. I’d rather address any ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting questions that you might have so would you like to why don’t you ask any questions you might have and then I’ll have Mr. Romanelli address them specifically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George do you want to start? MEMBER HORNING : Sure. Where does your business currently operate? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you’re going to ask that of Mr. Romanelli. PAT MOORE : Yea I’m going to have him bring him up. MR. ROMANELLI : Paul Romanelli. We currently operate on the second floor of 1515 Youngs Ave. which is Burts Reliable’s building. We’re in one room on the second floor up there. MEMBER HORNING : And these vans that you describe is that everybody kind of reports to work at that location? MR. ROMANELLI : Yea we have three technicians all driving small mini vans the four transit connect mini vans. MEMBER HORNING : Do you keep any stock in your location? MR. ROMANELLI : In our basement. MEMBER HORNING : So you’re operating on a second floor plus the basement? MR. ROMANELLI : Yea minor storage in the basement for our alarm systems come in a box about two feet by two feet so we don’t have a lot of room for necessary for us to store a lot of stuff. MEMBER HORNING : But you keep stock what makes it different from someone doing some other kind of business like plumbing a plumber or somebody else like that? MR. ROMANELLI : That’s a good question. Plumbers, master electricians, painters all have the need for one larger vehicles for heavier equipment some assembly on site often. There’s a big difference in what we do versus them. Our systems today are more or like computer systems which is actually an approved use in this location and that’s actually the only reason why we have a restricted electrical licensing in Suffolk County is because we do some computer networking otherwise we wouldn’t even need that license we have a state license that covers us for security and fire alarm systems. MEMBER HORNING : Do you stock cables? MR. ROMANELLI : We do. With the use of the basement the building could meet our needs. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I have a quick question George. Do you plan on using like heavy machinery like fork lifts or boom trucks or receive deliveries to move equipment around in the yard? MR. ROMANELLI : No never. MEMBER DANTES : How large are the deliveries do you ever receive pallets of equipment or pallets of cable? MR. ROMANELLI : No. UPS makes a delivery maybe three, four times a week to us in small boxes. MEMBER DANTES : In standard residential delivery truck? MR. ROMANELLI : Yep exactly. MEMBER DANTES : So it’s not a large tractor trailer delivering items to you. MR. ROMANELLI : No definitely not. MEMBER DANTES : Do you every receive deliveries of like heavy steel or lumber? MR. ROMANELLI : No not at all. MEMBER DANTES : Those are my questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good questions. George any more? MEMBER HORNING : No I don’t think so not right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Based upon the location that you have now and you can’t really compare it to the building over there because this is a much larger building you know when I was to your office inquiring about some information for the Mattituck Park District I noticed that it was a very simple small operation with one secretary. MR. ROMANELLI : That’s correct. Yea my office staff is myself and one secretary and occasionally we have one other part time person that comes in that works in the office and it’s been like that for sixteen years now. MEMBER DANTES : A couple more sorry. Do you own a trailer or do you store materials in a trailer outside of your business? MR. ROMANELLI : No. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Do you have any larger vehicles other than those three small trucks? MR. ROMANELLI : We have one sprinter van and it is they don’t even make it anymore because for a lot of contractors it was too small. It was when Mercedes owned and Chrysler had built that van and actually when we retire that van we’ll be back down to transits we don’t need a van that big anymore. It’s actually too big for us. It’s the smallest axle based they make that vehicle in fact they don’t even make it anymore cause it’s (inaudible) larger than that and we don’t have one like that anymore. MEMBER DANTES : Do you plan on maintaining the residential character of the building? MR. ROMANELLI : Yea absolutely. I actually like the fact that it looks like a residence and there is a tenant in the back of the space who residential tenant in the back and we have no intention of evicting him. We want to keep him in there. MEMBER DANTES : And you don’t plan on storing any materials outside correct? MR. ROMANELLI : Outside? No not at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where will you be parking your vehicles? Site plan is required so I guess that will be resolved MR. ROMANELLI : That’s a great question and currently right now there’s a large parking lot out front that actually had more vehicles there when it was a realtors office than we’ll ever have but eventually at some point I will approach the building department to build a small garage there. There was a garage on that property many years ago that was on the original site plan but was I think torn down because of it was just old termites or something many years ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the future so that’s not planned now so at the moment when you move in you’ll be parking where? MR. ROMANELLI : Right in the large parking lot that’s already on site. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and that’s a maximum three vehicles you’re saying? MR. ROMANELLI : No no PAT MOORE : No no how many vehicles do you have. MR. ROMANELLI : Oh mine oh yea three vehicles yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Three small vans in that lot and I presume ingress and egress is primarily from Jockey Creek not from Main Rd? ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MR. ROMANELLI : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do have a slight entrance MR. ROMANELLI : Yea what you said though. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Mr. Romanelli as you know the property wraps around a house and is part of the church property which is on the other side of that piece of property would your business in any way impact that church property? MR. ROMANELLI : None whatsoever. There access road is behind on the back of our property and there’s no reason for us to have any kind of blockage or impingement on their property at all. PAT MOORE : Do you usually work on Sundays? MR. ROMANELLI : Never I try not to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He’s in church. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Do you see that anything in your business would impact this piece of property as anything more than a very simple low impact business? MR. ROMANELLI : My business anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea. MR. ROMANELLI : Not really. I mean we our business is 80% residential. We do about 20% commercial most that’s light commercial. We’ve been that way and that’s been our market for over fifteen years and the technology has changed tremendously I mean years ago yea we stored a lot more wire and a lot more product but the technology now with wireless systems you know what would take us days to do one alarm system we now do in half a day because the technology it’s smaller it’s more compact there’s less wire so it’s technology has just made our business much more efficient. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank you. MEMBER HORNING : Sir, are you maintaining that you don’t want a contractor business or that the contractors business fits into the scope of what the town allows? PAT MOORE : No in fact we’re saying we’re not a contractor’s business we are what the we are a permitted use which is a business office is permitted in RO. It also specifically allows computer businesses which is most analogous or part of the Suffolk Security business so we’re saying that ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting we’re already a permitted use that the Building Department incorrectly identified his business as a contractor’s yard or a contractor and he is not a contractor by any means. A.T.A KIELY : George the definition is broad it says computer software services and the like so PAT MOORE : And the like so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we’re arguing this is the like. PAT MOORE : This is the like closest to the uses that are listed permitted uses. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just summarize Mr. Romanelli’s letter to us which is that what you have is a control license from NYS Department of State as an alarm installer and you have a Suffolk County license that’s an RE5 defined as a communications cable installer because you do do some computer related work and so the conclusion here that you’d like this Board to consider is that this is a business office similar to those businesses that are permitted in this zone district and should be an as of right situation that will then just require site plan. PAT MOORE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from anybody else? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I have a question. At your present location at Burts Reliable do you know what that parcel is zoned as? MR. ROMANELLI : I don’t acutally, it’s not my property. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : How would you describe your business as being different from an electrical contractor? MR. ROMANELLI : Quite different actually you can there’s a good comparison if you look at the new Platinum Electric building that’s up there. They store a significantly more pipe conduits, large electrical transformers things of that nature, generators it’s a line voltage wire lots of line voltage wire. They can’t perform their business without wire we can with minimum wire. They require larger vehicles because of the weights of what they carry. It’s very very different from what we have. We are much more a kin to like you said to computer networking today our systems are actually all our systems they don’t even tie to a phone line they’re all connected to a network cable or cellular communicator so it’s very very different. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay I think what we can see here is the differences is the products that you and electrical contractors would install at residences ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MR. ROMANELLI : That’s correct but also cell systems to direct to customers to install themselves so like do it yourself home systems. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That would be something that you would maybe drop off at their house or ship to them or whatever like the new yea I’ve heard (inaudible) MR. ROMANELLI : (inaudible) you see on line now it’s a lot of that and we do personal emergency systems life line type units and most of those are actually shipped right to the house. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well what would be similar to your operation and to a contractor would be your employees would come probably in the morning Monday through Friday I would assume in their cars and pick up the company vehicle and go off to a job. MR. ROMANELLI : That’s correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Do their job maybe come back for lunch or when they completed a small job come back and get their next orders so be it. MR. ROMANELLI : That’s correct and that’s the only thing that’s similar. Years ago we actually used to let the employees take the vehicles home and because of expense and tracking and (inaudible) and all the things that go along with having a company vehicle someplace else we stopped that policy years ago but in that situation would be more like a realtor than a contractor. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Sure it’s like your it would be your office base of operations. MR. ROMANELLI : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : For direction to your employees and answering the phones for customers MR. ROMANELLI : That’s exactly right. PAT MOORE : Most of your contact with customers is by phone and at their home or office? MR. ROMANELLI : Phone and internet and we do sales at their home. PAT MOORE : At their home so generally unlike Mr. Goehringer who actually showed up at your office is that the exception to the rule or? MR. ROMANELLI : Yea yea we actually it’s really kind of a surprise when a customer actually walks into our office. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea actually I think your secretary was startled. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well you know Gerry he’s everywhere. MR. ROMANELLI : No yea it’s there’s a possibility because we’d have a more local presence on the Main Rd. that we might have some more people stop in to pay their bill or something like that but there’s no retail sale operation out of the building or anything else like that. MEMBER HORNING : How do you address the Planning Board’s concerns? MR. ROMANELLI : What are their concerns? MEMBER HORNING : Pat has the memo I think. PAT MOORE : Do I? I have to look and see. MEMBER HORNING : One they describe what the purpose of the residential office district what it’s purpose is like a transition area between business and residential. They say that quote the Board is concerned about a reduction in the quality of life or nearby residence across the street on Rt. 25 in Jockey Creek area and it might result in an intensification of use. They also are concerned as they say quote that the incremental granting of more intense uses in a RO zone will erode the purpose of zoning district and detract from the hamlet center. This type of development pattern result in sprawl. PAT MOORE : Well I think that based on the testimony you just heard many of those concerns are unjustified. I would say that this property is RO so therefore it is part of the transition. Our position is that Suffolk Security is a permitted is one of the like permitted uses in RO and the fact is that this property has been a commercial use in the sense that it’s been the real estate office for since actually before it was rezoned Sharp got a use limited use variance to run a real estate office when it was still residential zoning prior to the adoption of the rezoning of Main Rd. so I the arguments just don’t make sense. I think that if we were I believe that if you come to the conclusion that Suffolk Security is in fact a use that is a permitted use as the permitted uses are defined you don’t have the issue of a use variance that maybe those arguments might be applicable. I don’t believe their applicable with respect to even a use variance for this particular use because I think if they were looking at it as a general contractors yard with the equipment and the delivery of large products would equipment whatever trucks that argument might be applicable. I don’t believe that the arguments that have been raised are you know are in line with what we’re presenting to you today and given to you in writing. MEMBER HORNING : What are the possibilities then that the business might be expanded in scope at some point and turned into more of a contractors business? ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : How long have you been in business? MEMBER HORNING : Defined by the code. MR. ROMANELLI : We’ve been in our location for sixteen years and if you go by that facility of course it’s an industrial looking facility because of the oil company that’s in there but my operation is one office upstairs and it has been that way and a shared conference room that actually is Burts Reliable. I mean the reason I’m there is my family owns the property and the rent is cheap but this just gives the ability to have our own space our own presence and just planning for the future as far as where we position our office. From a standpoint of growth certainly that’s a possibility of always growing my business but not within that location and storing large things it’s not the nature of our business. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think Pat’s characterized it accurately. The comments from Planning were specifically related to the use variance application in which case a proposed contractors yard which is not a permitted use is what they’re addressing with all of the large scale equipment. MR. ROMANELLI : Yea we don’t have if you just drive the road a little bit Southold Welding and Grave Masonry those are contractor yards. They’ve got stone, tools and equipment outside. We don’t have anything like that at all. A.T.A. KIELY : And if this business morph’s into that then it’s a non-permitted use at that point. PAT MOORE : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s right. A.T.A. KIELY : So they operate within how they’re saying they’re going to operate then they fall into that small business office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be and like. A.T.A. KIELY : and like. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I think part of the problem here too is that likens what you’ve proposed to a contractors yard is the fact that you have commercial vehicles that advertised your company name and such or as you were equating it to the real estate office they are personal residential I mean personal cars A.T.A. KIELY : Benninati has they have cars that are wrapped with their names these days ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay alright so that’s commercial too so okay that would speak to your favor. MR. ROMANELLI : Not only that but if you look at the sign if it’s currently in the front of the building it’s been there for years it says Bohn Real Estate Bohn Contracting so there’s been a contractors office per say maybe not with lumber CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not the yard. MR. ROMANELLI : and things parked there but there’s been a contractors office that’s more industrial than mine in that building for years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Just trying to throw everything out there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We need that for code interpretation kind of thing. Anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Would you please just come we want to include your comments. We record this so we have to have people talk into the mic. Just tell us your name please. BETH STERNS : My name is Beth Sterns and I am on the Board of the Christian Science Society which is next door to the property under discussion and I haven’t heard anything that concerns me negatively so I think I would welcome him next door and wish him the best. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you so much for your comments. Alright anything else from anybody? Okay we have all that we need. Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close both hearings reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? 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) ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6850 – ADF VENTURES, LLC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for ADF Ventures, LLC # 6850. This hearing was re-opened by Board resolution and I’m going to read the resolution for the purposes of entering into the record 1) written comments addressed to the Board of Appeals and to rescind the Type II SEQRA designation and 2) holding the hearing open until the Planning Board as lead agency makes a SEQRA determination on the application which requires a coordinated review. Since that was re-opened for written only and SEQRA determination we have received a SEQRA determination from the Planning Board dated November 2 nd which is a negative declaration notice of determination of non-significance that is now in our files. We have also received from them substantial written comments and I’ll get into those in a moment. This morning we received a written hand delivered brief from Eric Bressler’s office that is going to be part of our record and we received since the hearing was opened an additional thirteen to fifteen letters of objection from neighbors. All of those are part of our record. I want to review first that the letters all reiterate pretty much the same thing. There is an ongoing concern with traffic impacts and noise. There is an ongoing concern with the safety of children in a residential area, the character of the neighborhood as residential and its impact with another light industrial use. The devaluation of property rights values rather and the substantiality of variances. In one way or another every one of those letters received prior and since expresses concern over those things. The comments from the Planning Board were addressed to the Zoning Board because the reason SEQRA was we asked them to make a SEQRA determination was to essentially carefully review what possible impact the proposed contractor’s yard may have on the neighborhood. This is again a public document which is foil able and I’m going to just review a couple of quick things in there so that you’re aware of them because I know it’s a lot easier for that to take place and for everyone to run into the office and try and see these although you’re certainly welcomed to do so. First of all there’s a history of that neighborhood and what how this entire zoning came to be and there’s a map showing the creation of this subdivision on October 19 th of 1918 there was a change in 1988 on the subject parcel to C Light Industrial and the cause of that change is not known. There is nothing in our historical records to indicate why that took place. The Planning Board goes on to say the transition from residential use to C Light Industrial then Light Industrial did not seem justified due to the parcel size which cannot support the LI zoning district purpose of the setbacks needed to accommodate light industrial use and it goes on. This subject parcel’s 9,541 sq. ft. the lot size in the particular use district is a minimum area of 40,000 sq. ft. Secondly they’re talking about a petition of abandonment that was filed in 1981 to abandon a portion of Seventh St. which is now shown on the submitted survey but it’s unclear if the action was ever completed and the Zoning Board needs to see whether or not it can be demonstrated that how that portion of ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting Seventh St. was transferred to this subject lot. The third thing they address is neighborhood the neighborhood residential uses and it basically says that the Planning Board recognizes that when the parcels were zoned for industrial use the railroad was an available transportation mode to move supplies to and from these particular parcels. Accessibility to the railroad is not achievable today from this location nor is that the way goods and services are not delivered. Then they go on to talk about the five variances actually six variances that the Board granted to Lewis Marine in 1982 and how substantial they were and finally let’s move on. In summary there’s a table here talking about the substantiality of the variances for Lewis Marine comparing the variance relief requested by the applicant. They’re talking about the continuation of this development pattern does not meet the town goals to preserve the quality of life of area residence. I’m going to read their conclusion which is the Planning Board cannot support the variances as requested for the following reasons. The variances requested are too substantial. The very small parcel size does not leave room enough room for the mitigation of impacts through plantings and setbacks with the building size that is proposed. Once the building is complete within the code required time frame any variances granted will run with the land providing potential for future uses that may cause greater adverse impacts to the character of the community than the businesses currently proposed and four the parcel is imbedded within a residential neighborhood. Then they go on to say if the Board is so inclined to grant the variances for alternative relief there are a series of eight proposed ways to try to mitigate potential impacts. Now let’s see if there’s anything else I think that pretty much covers what’s in here. With regard to what is being proposed I’ll do this just to review it because this is being recorded. The proposed variances are a front yard setback at 11 feet. The code permits an average setback of 16 feet based upon the averages of adjacent parcels those setbacks. The lineal feet of let’s see 64 lineal feet on the building along a street frontage where the code provides for more than a maximum of 60 and a rear yard setback of 5 feet where the code requires 70 feet. That is the same survey that I think we’ve been looking at continuously. I double checked to make sure that the Zoning Board has in its files the survey that Planning Board has okay so we’re on the same page. Now I know how interested all of you are and I do want I went through all of this because I do want you to be aware of the fact that we did not re- open this hearing for testimony. We only re-opened it for SEQRA determination and for written comments okay. We have received the SEQRA determination which is why this hearing is taking place now and we have accepted all written documentation received today. Are you intending to say something Mr. Bressler. MR. BRESSLER : I’m intending to say only that I have a supplemental written submission that I would like to hand up. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that’s fine. I hope you understand that we are as I said we aren’t going to take testimony but what I can do Mr. Kelly if you have not seen these documents. We just got them and MR. KELLY : I think I can grant some relief to everybody here. We’ve decided to withdraw the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. MR. KELLY : Can we do that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s welcomed testimony. So you are going to withdraw your application? MR. KELLY : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. May I have that in writing please? A.T.A. KIELY : It’s on the record Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright then we don’t need it if you say we don’t need it. MR. KELLY : We’ll provide written. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can email it that’s fine. MR. KELLY : Bill Kelly authorized agent for the owner we wish to withdraw the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Bill. So noted and I think we can at this point then close this hearing and we don’t have to reserve decision to later date because we don’t have to make one. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6889 – ALLISON LATHAM CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is Allison Latham # 6889. This is a request under Section 280-146D for an Interpretation of the Town Code Article III Section 280-14 Bulk Schedule appealing the Building Inspector’s September 10, 2015 Amended Notice of Disapproval regarding number of uses proposed on property located at 860 Old North Rd. in Southold. Now having said that we have received written correspondence a letter from Ms. Latham indicating that being aware of the fact that an amended Notice of Disapproval has since been issued and as a result of the merger of the fact that the amended notice dated October 27 th correctly includes the requirements of the bulk schedule it would appear that my I’m reading from Ms. Latham’s letter application is now moot going on I believe my application with attachments under ZBA file 6889 which is her application for code interpretation should be made part of ZBA file # 6861 which is the application on the subject property for a winery as part of the record and request that it be so included. I therefore am withdrawing my application under the ZBA file 6889 on the condition that the contents thereof be made a part of the file and record of Southold Farm & Cellar ZBA file # 6861. I’m going to actually make that as a motion and ask for a second and vote of the Board so that we can remove that content from one application and apply it to the file which simply saves you the trouble of having to resubmit it under a different file name cause I’m assuming that’s what would be the case. So moved. Is there a second. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now I’m going to make a motion to accept the request withdrawing this application. Is there a second? ?? November 5, 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 Resolutions) PAT MOORE : When was that submitted what date? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : November 4, 2015. PAT MOORE : Yesterday. I would just for the record I did not receive a copy of that and therefore we prepared anticipated having that hearing and just a continuation of the abuse of my client on this application the courtesy that was not forward by Ms. Latham to at least let us know that she had intentions of withdrawing the application and then I will address the appeal 6861 but I’m putting on the record CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so noted okay. PAT MOORE : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George of course as you all know has to catch a ferry back to Fishers Island. First of all Pat we have not opened up Southold Farm and Cellars hearing that’s on for 2:15 okay and what we you know when we do that I’m going to have to make everybody aware that we’re going to have to re-notice and hear this in December because we do not have the correct notice in the paper because it’s only side and front yard setbacks so at the very least I mean we can I guess take some testimony that addresses the front yard setback. PAT MOORE : No I’m going to address I’m going to start by addressing the arguments and in fairness to Mr. to the Southold Farm and Cellar this has been a travesty and an impact financially on my client I want to start the process. A.T.A. KIELY : It’s not even opened. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not opened so before you start making you’re the record is not at the moment official until we open that hearing up so let’s hold on a few minutes. HEARING # 6861 – SOUTHOLD FARM and CELLAR, INC. (MEADOR) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is Southold Farm and Cellar Inc. (Meador) # 6861. The agenda indicates that this hearing is to be adjourned due to the revised Notice of Disapproval dated October 27, 2015 of course this hearing has been adjourned previously and that is because the amended Notice of Disapproval addresses issues related to the bulk schedule that were not in the Notice of Disapproval that was advertised in the paper and as a consequence we are obligated to re-advertise and let the public understand what exactly is going to be discussed. The first thing I want to do is make a motion to enter into the record file # 6861 Southold Farm and Cellar the material that legal counsel for the neighbors Pat Moore has just submitted to the Board with regard to appeal # 6889. I would like to move that information into the current file on Southold Farm and Cellar to extend the same courtesy for the applicant as we just did to Ms. Latham. So we will all have an opportunity to review this thoroughly read everything that’s being presented both sides and us. We need time to digest all of this material and make sure we are thoroughly familiar with everything that’s in it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a very long winded motion. Motion is clearly to accept the information provided by Pat Moore relative to what is now closed and withdrawn appeal # 6889 into file # 6861. Is there a second to that? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and now that’s part of our record and we can address that properly. Now I understand your frustration we are too. This seems to be going on for a very protractive period of time and we don’t generally like to do that but we have to do this correctly and so we are legally obligated to discuss the issue of the bulk schedule okay when it’s properly advertised in the paper and so as frustrating as that may be for everyone I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to December PAT MOORE : No I’m sorry I would object to the adjournment. Allow us to put our prepared documentation on the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m sorry say what? PAT MOORE : We are here to start the application. The only reason that this notice is being amended or excuse me the procedure here is that Ms. Latham’s appeal I would argue she had no standing for her objections had she gone to court her objections would have been probably thrown out and her appeal thrown out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Pat it’s now moot. PAT MOORE : No she’s incorporated her arguments into this (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you can address that. A.T.A. KIELY : She’s allowed to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She’s allowed to do that and you’re allowed to argue them but not now. PAT MOORE : What I’m saying is that it’s I’ve prepared for this hearing. We have noticed part of this hearing and Ms. Latham’s arguments were also noticed which have now been incorporated into this appeal. The only reason that the building inspector changed the Notice of Disapproval is because the town attorney sent a memo advising them to change it so we are at a point now where let’s you know it’s we are at the fourth Notice of Disapproval which I’ve now every month to two months we get a new Notice of Disapproval. Obviously the Town has issues with respect in interpreting this whole section of the code by the fact that we get a new Notice of Disapproval every one to two months. That’s indicative of the fact that if the town doesn’t know what this means it certainly it’s unfair to any owner of property or applicant that has to rely on the town’s code and rely on the town’s departments to advise them correctly including his own counsel that represented him when he purchased Mr. Cuddy who is a well-known well respected both zoning and land use attorney and the issues that are being raised here today are new and a complete turn around of prior precedent in the application of the code in this town ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting so I want to put on the record what I’ve prepared some argument and I understand you’re going to carry the hearing forward but in fairness to my client and those that are here to speak on the application allow us to start because otherwise we just push it for a December date. We have all new arguments or the same arguments that we are prepared to make today and we are just delayed more months and more expense to a client who is probably one of the smallest wineries in this town so it is truly a hardship for this particular owner to have been dragged through this process since April after buying a property and relying on the town and the departments of the town before purchasing the property so I am frustrated on behalf of my client by the way this has been handled not your certainly this Board has been very professional and I appreciate it but the way the town as a whole has addressed this issue and I want to put the issues on the record and I want to start the dialogue because quite frankly this last Notice of Disapproval is wrong and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on hold on. We hear you we legally cannot discuss what has not been publicly noticed okay. What I would love to support your position I can’t do that. We have to have this in the paper and it has to be discussed at the time that it’s noticed properly. Now what you have done is entered into the record your written information. That will get us started on reading your arguments. We’ve carried it out of an application which is now withdrawn so that those arguments which I’m sure would overlap with what you’d be prepared to talk about with regard to Southold Farm and Cellars and the new Notice of Disapproval. I’m sure the arguments are the same or similar and we will get going on reading it and we will be back when we can discuss it legally in front of the public. There’s no point in discussing just a front yard setback. I mean because that’s very fragmented and all we could talk about and we’ve already have talked about the front yard setback actually quite a bit in previous hearings so as inconvenient and as annoyed I mean it’s annoying for us to cause how many time do we have to keep taking in more information reading it digesting it moving it on for some other reason. Our job is to respond to the notices from a duly licensed code enforcement official as you know and so that is what we have to do. Wherever that you have every right to argue whatever way you wish and so does anyone else in the audience or in an audience to be next month with regard to the notice and it’s veracity or lack thereof okay. So I’m going to have to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to December 3 rd and what time okay so we will set a time once we have this legally noticed so I’m just going to make a motion to adjourn to December 3 rd regular meeting. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) PAT MOORE : Could you all please deal with this however you choose to deal with this but understand that we had just sent out the notices of disapproval excuse me the notices the mailings spent $150 in mailings and then received this Notice of Disapproval three days after the ten day time frame would of allowed us to re-notice. This just this process is completely outrages. If anything I hope that a court will see what my client has been going through since April. It is outrages. A.T.A. KIELY : Pat can I just when you say hardship that your client suffered he’s operating okay cause he has a stay in place you can’t enforce against him so I understand the frustration and his frustration but we’re trying to get it right. Right by your client and by the residents of the town so when you say hardship I just don’t get it. PAT MOORE : Well the fact is that you all know from the press that his processing the crushing of his grapes had to be done outside manually this season when in fact he started the process prior to April 9 th to be able to build the barn to just crush his grapes the manual crushing so the fact is that yes I appreciate the fact that the fact that we have this appeal we’ve stayed the enforcement action and we appreciate that and appreciate the town attorney and you know the cooperation that that has allowed us to proceed but understand that this process since April is not just the taste the 400 sq. ft. tasting room that is that’s just such a minor part of this application when in fact my client needs the building to store the vats and crush the grapes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand but now you know now we just adjourned and now we’re continuing to talk and this is not appropriate okay. Yes it’s been a long procedure and it’s a very complicated property. That is required you to go through a whole series of hoops your client okay so it’s not a slam dunk it’s a complicated situation and it could potentially have significant precedent. We don’t know what so we’ve got to be very careful for the property owners sake and for the towns sake. PAT MOORE : Yes I agree the precedent unfortunately CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s an awful lot of issues that are coming out some of which you know were apparent earlier this morning when we talked about the Sannino application. There are things that I believe the legislative body in this town has really got to come to grips with and ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting look at you know and it’s way overdue but that is not what we are allowed to do. We are not people who want to sit here and write de facto code. PAT MOORE : I understand that and Ms. Latham has pushed this Board to write de facto code. That’s why we’re here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you can argue that PAT MOORE : Well based on precedent I’ve got multiple examples. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can argue that but not now. ALLISON LATHAM : Can I say something? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It depends on what. ALLISON LATHAM : It’s just has to do purely with what Ms. Moore it’s just that it’s pretty I find it pretty rather disingenuous for the applicant to be complaining about the length of this process because the number of Notice of Disapprovals that have been issued in this matter has occurred in part due to the misrepresentations that were made by the applicant as far as what exactly he was doing. PAT MOORE : Now I would object because that’s already that’s arguing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re stopping this we’re going nowhere with this. SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE : Now you’re questioning our integrity. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m not questioning anything. That’s a civil matter and that has nothing to do with A.T.A. KIELY : Let’s end this now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is adjourned and we will see you all in December. ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting C E R T I F I C A T I O N 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 : November 19, 2015 ?? November 5, 2015 Regular Meeting ??