Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/02/2015 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 April 2, 2015 9:45 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES – Member GERARD GOEHRINGER – Member GEORGE HORNING – Member (left at 2:12 P.M.) KENNETH SCHNEIDER – Member VICKI TOTH – Board Assistant STEPHEN KIELY – Assistant Town Attorney ? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page THEOTOKIS DAVAS and VASILIOS PAPAGIANIS # 6852 3 – 8 ANDREAS PAVLOU # 6827 8 - 11 RICHARD MANFREDI # 6848 11 - 12 RICHARD TROWNSELL, DAVID TROWNSELL and KAREN FEUERMAN # 6845 12 - 18 PATRICIA MACINTYRE # 6847 18 - 20 FHP ENTERPRISES # 6849 21 - 24 PECONIC LANDING @ SOUTHOLD, INC. # 6843 24 - 27 WILLIAM A. PENNEY, III and SUKRU ILGIN (CV) # 6839 27 - 31 WILLIAM A. PENNEY, III and SUKRU ILGIN (CV) # 6840 27 - 31 KENNETH and JOANN ZAHLER # 6851 31 - 38 F1 MOSS, LLC # 6846 38 - 47 ADF VENTURES, LLC # 6850 47 - 61 ? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6852 – THEOTOKIS DAVAS and VASILIOS PAPAGIANIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board this morning is for Davas and Papagianis # 6852. This is a request for variance from Article III Code Section 280-15B and the Building Inspector’s February 19, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for a workshop addition to an existing accessory garage, at; less than the code required side yard setback of 20 feet, located at: 1345 Chapel Lane (corner County Route 48 aka North Road) Greenport, NY. SCTM # 1000-45-1-8. Good morning state your name for the record please. ROBERT BROWN : Robert Brown architect for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Robert looks like this is an addition of 25 foot by 26.7 foot addition to an existing accessory garage with a 4 foot 1 foot side yard setback where the code requires 20 feet. I wanted to ask you about the survey it appears like its two lots and yet it talks about frontage on the North Rd. Is that because it kind of just angles just like a little portion of it that sits in front of the lot that actually has a house on it that’s on the North Rd.? ROBERT BROWN : It’s my understanding that the property line that you’re looking at is a previous property line and the lots were merged. That’s my understanding. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh. ROBERT BROWN : I don’t have any documentation for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The lots are merged so if the lots are merged then that puts two dwellings on one property? ROBERT BROWN : I cannot be sure about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean there’s a lot line see the so here’s the North Rd. There’s a dwelling here there’s a dwelling there cottage but I’m just trying to understand first the property itself. ROBERT BROWN : As am I. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause this tax map thing has an interesting configuration you know it’s showing this property fronting here so I get that and it says it shows it on the survey too the contours but I’m not I just want to know if it’s two lots or one lot. So it’s merged. There’s Pre C.O.’s on ? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting ROBERT BROWN : Yes Pre C.O.’s on everything. When I was doing a lot coverage based on the surveyors area for the lot it includes that entire piece. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does? Ok. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : On the property card it reads 9/3/92 building permit number replaces 20116 non-habitable. I don’t know which one they’re referring to as non-habitable. ROBERT BROWN : That I would not know. Certainly the garage (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re adding proposed to add a workshop with storage and a half bath and an overhead loft is that correct? ROBERT BROWN : Yes that’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what kind of workshop would that be? ROBERT BROWN : I believe a woodworking shop is what I was told. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For home occupation or for ROBERT BROWN : Yes, well for not professional occupation but for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : for a hobby? ROBERT BROWN : Hobby yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words it’s not you know ROBERT BROWN : He’s not opening a shop. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Proposed to be heated? ROBERT BROWN : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it’s seasonally used? ROBERT BROWN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you’ll have to drain the pipes I guess on the half bath? ROBERT BROWN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why not build on the northerly side of the garage to create a more conforming side yard setback? ? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting ROBERT BROWN : There is an existing foundation that we are using as the starting point for this addition which is indicated on the plans and it is the owner’s wish that we use that as the starting point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see what else the Board, Eric do you have any questions on this? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea is this going to be a block building? ROBERT BROWN : No framed. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Framed building. Well, that existing foundation how high does it stick out of the ground about 3 feet? ROBERT BROWN : Well the grade is very changeable in that area. The grade drops down quite a bit. If you leave the foundation the top of existing foundation the existing abandoned foundation is roughly equivalent to the top of the foundation of the garage. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I saw it to be higher. It appears to be like almost like a tank type of situation. I was wondering why? ROBERT BROWN : I believe actually at one time it was something with a tank but from that foundation MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh I see I’m looking at the photograph now you’re right it does match the ROBERT BROWN : It’s deceptive because of grade. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea okay so you want to continue to use part of that foundation? ROBERT BROWN : If it’s feasible from the contractor’s point of view that would be (inaudible) MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Why do you want to connect the proposed building to the garage? ROBERT BROWN : I believe it was matter of being able to store equipment of lawn mowers and so forth to be able to access through the garage doors and into the storage area. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No further questions. ? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have one before George. The accessory structure law you know now defines maximum size when this is 25 by 26.7. When you attach it to the garage what will the total square footage of that accessory structure (inaudible) what you’re doing is enlarging the existing accessory structure. ROBERT BROWN : Yes I don’t have that information readily at hand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can get a rough idea by simply looking at the perimeter 18.11 by 20 feet 6 inches, does anybody have a calculator? And then just look at 26.7 by 25 and then add the two. Eighteen foot eleven make it 19 feet by 20.5 and then 25 by 26.7 ok and then you add that to the 378. Six hundred and fifty and three hundred seventy eight, 1028 square feet. How big is the property that will tell us what the maximum is 750 unless it’s a certain percentage of a very large then it’s three percent of the overall size of the property. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : When does that start at 80,000 sq. ft.? ROBERT BROWN : The lot is 75,400. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 1.73 acres. I’m just trying to see if unintentionally we’re now in a different situation size wise because we should at least address that at the same time. ROBERT BROWN : Certainly. I wasn’t aware of that because it was not part of the denial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They didn’t include that but then I don’t know that they necessarily added it up. They just looked at the addition. MEMBER HORNING : It’s a major issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the setback but it is it does have an impact. We can address it anyway as long as it’s brought up here at the hearing. MEMBER HORNING : They need another variance for non-conforming accessory structure size. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So, the 3 percent starts from parcels CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 80,000 MEMBER SCHNEIDER : How much? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 60,000, just trying to be careful and detailed. George questions? MEMBER HORNING : I think I saw a note somewhere in the application there’s new drywells? ROBERT BROWN : Yes, providing new drainage for the entire structure. ? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Okay. What can you tell us about the property owners on the westerly side of this property. ROBERT BROWN : I believe that is the County. MEMBER HORNING : And you addressed the idea of an alternative location by telling us that you wanted the applicant wanted to use an existing foundation. ROBERT BROWN : Yes as the starting point for the addition. MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you. ROBERT BROWN : And I believe he wanted to maintain the maximum separation between the house (inaudible) the garage. MEMBER HORNING : Well considering that the westerly property owner the one large parcel is owned by the County what do you think and or maybe the Town of Southold too what’s the chances of that being developed with a house in the future? ROBERT BROWN : My understanding is you never know (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea. There’s no attempt to be able to use this shop for habitable purposes seasonally in the summer time with a half bath situation? ROBERT BROWN : No. That’s intended for convenience and there’s no shower. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Half bath is permitted anyway by code in an accessory structure. Anything from anybody else? Anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. ? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Thank you. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6827 – ANDREAS PAVLOU CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Andreas Pavlou this is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s October 3, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling, at; less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, located at: 1335 Sound Beach Drive (Central Drive) Mattituck. FRANK NOTARO : Good morning my name is Frank Notaro. I’m the architect for Mr. and Mrs. Pavlou. A little brief history, I’ve worked with the Pavlou’s for about maybe 12 or 15 years. I did the original alteration to the present home. Their getting on in years as we all are as I am as you can see I’m all gray and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You get no sympathy from me Frank. FRANK NOTARO : And they requested me to draw up handicap accessible first floor bedroom for them and basically they have certain medical needs and we came up with this it wouldn’t be non-conforming if the property were completely rectangular. Unfortunately the property is like a trapezoid so as the property approaches the north it actually clips the setback clips the you know the north side of the proposed building. The closets everything are going to be handicapped accessible. One of the constraints that we’re working with number 1 is we really couldn’t put it on the inside of the home. There’s really no setback there is a neighbor directly there. The north side of the property is all deck and the front property which is actually considered the rear of the property is already kind of maxed out. Their actual address is down the cliff on that other road down there. So, we drew up a couple of sketches and this is the sketch that they were satisfied with their needs and now we’re coming to the Board for possible relief for 1.6 feet on part of this structure. If I can answer any questions. ? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just because we’re obligated to explore the necessity for non- conformance what would be the difficulty in removing 2 feet from the width of this 14.5 foot wide structure you know addition in order to make it a conforming side yard? FRANK NOTARO : Well they had certain needs they have equipment that has to go into the unit but also their where their bedrooms are shown that’s actually a stone wall right now so I have to fur that out. So that’s going to get furred out about another 8 inches so that takes away from you know that space. They would if possible, would like to take advantage of the view they have and that’s why we positioned the beds over there. So, this was a comfortable size to meet their needs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, both for view and also for accessibility? FRANK NOTARO : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright involves you know seeing the property we’ve been out to inspect the sight and it certainly sits up very high off of Central. Any questions from anybody? George? MEMBER HORNING : What can you tell us about the westerly adjacent property? FRANK NOTARO : Well I can tell you it belongs to the Meskouris brothers and I’ve done about 5 projects for them and Jim was like anything you say Frank you can’t quote me on that but that’s what he said when he said what do I do with this paper? Do I sign this? I said yes please sign the certified mailing. He said anything you say. It personally is a vacant piece of property over there. MEMBER HORNING : Is there any intention for someone to build there and would they you know with this project here you think in any way affect what someone would want to do on that parcel? FRANK NOTARO : My only professional opinion I don’t think it really would have a great effect on it. I did explain it to Meskouris and I think they have adequate setbacks. They have a nice piece of property next door so I don’t think it would have any effect on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes I just want to tell you Frank it was really difficult getting up that driveway in the winter time cause I was down on Sound Beach Road and then I looked up and ? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting noticed the fact that the house was up there and it’s probably is the last house that has that address so but that was a really icy driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All sight inspections have been really hazardous for the last couple of months. It’s not been very easy to you know. FRANK NOTARO : The first sign I put up blew away so this one I screwed about 8 time into that post cause they get some pretty good winds up there. No you’re right I had to walk about 15 feet you know the Pavlou’s fortunately have the ability to go down to Florida in the winter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Smart move. FRANK NOTARO : No it was like an ice skating rink there. You’re right. Could of walked through the woods next door. The Meskouris’s actually that’s not even the Meskouris’s property that’s another person’s property. MEMBER HORNING : That’s on the south side? FRANK NOTARO : No on the west side forward. This is like a flagged lot behind that’s owned by someone else. She lives up in Maine right now I’ve been sending stuff up to her in Maine. MEMBER HORNING : That one’s also vacant? FRANK NOTARO : Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : A lot of poison ivy up there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea buried in snow. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It doesn’t make any difference. If you touch it you’ll get it. FRANK NOTARO : No there must have been like 4 inches of ice on that driveway when I went up there to put that sign up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anyone Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER HORNING : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Thank you, Frank. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6848 – RICHARD MANFREDI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is Richard Manfredi # 6848 we have a request for an adjournment to the May 7 th meeting but I will read the Legal Notice and then see if there is anyone here wanting to address the application. Request for Variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector’s January 22, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling, at: 1) more than the code maximum number of stories of 2½ stories, located at: 240 Sunset Path (Hilltop Path) Southold, NY. SCTM # 1000-54-1-19. Is there anyone here that would like to address this application? Okay hearing no comments, questions or anyone present I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to May 7 th 2015. Wanna put it on like the first one? Just do it first okay let’s put that on for hold on we’re going to meet at 8:30 let’s put it on for 9 o’clock. So I made that motion. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I second it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6845 – RICHARD TROWNSELL, DAVID TROWNSELL and KAREN FEUERMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Richard Trownsell, David Trownsell and Karen Feuerman # 6845 this is a request for Variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article XXII Section 280-116B and the Building Inspector’s December 22, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for demolition and reconstruction of a dwelling with deck addition, at; 1) less than the code required minimum single side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet located at: 980 Oak Avenue (adj. to Goose Creek) Southold, NY. SCTM # 1000-77-1-6. NANCY DWYER : Hello. I’m Nancy Dwyer on behalf of the Feuerman and Trownsell family. They are looking to rebuild the house. Originally we were going to rebuild it the way that it sits right now. It had damage due to hurricane Sandy and insurance their homeowners insurance is requiring them to take it much more extensive and bring it up to code compliance. The first floor elevation as well as the first floor ceiling heights so we are rebuilding the exterior walls and putting new roof on the house on the existing footprint and we’re raising it to put a foundation underneath it to bring it up to a required floor height. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and it looks like the bulkhead setback is it 66 feet? NANCY DWYER : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and the side yard existing is at 5.5 feet where the code requires a 10 foot minimum. NANCY DWYER : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let’s see what questions we have. Let’s start with Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I actually have one that maybe you can answer and maybe you can’t you know we’re familiar with the area there’s you know lots of small cottages around and small properties some larger properties some houses are improved right (inaudible) but there’s a concrete drainage trough of some sort that runs along the side yard from the street right into Goose Creek, who owns that? ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting NANCY DWYER : I don’t know who owns that. I believe that’s actually part of the drainage from the road. I don’t necessarily know that it’s owned by one property (inaudible) or another. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wonder if the Town is aware of it or if the Town installed it or what. I can’t imagine they would have road runoff going directly into Goose Creek. NANCY DWYER : From what I’ve noticed a lot of that neighborhood has those troughs running through the properties or alongside the properties. A couple of doors down there is another one as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay the bulkheads are all low down there they’re small. This is just on the side from this application but maybe we ought to let Jamie know about this, the Town Engineer you know and have him double check. I think that’s part of our obligation when we make sight inspections to look at drainage issues and if you want I can call Jamie I can just give him a call and tell him maybe to take a look at that property and apparently there may be another one on the same road and see if they can shed some light on the situation cause it’s really bad I mean the pitch is really going from the road which is at one elevation right in the creek and that’s against everything I think the drainage code wants done so I’m sure it predated Chapter 236 but still we maybe there is something that can mitigate that mishmash over there. Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What is the present foundation consist of? NANCY DWYER : It consists of block in some areas piers in other areas. Nothing that’s too substantial. It’s for the most part concrete block that doesn’t have any real footings or slab underneath it. It’s dirt. It was a true cottage. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay. So it wasn’t really no crawl space with a slab. NANCY DWYER : No, nope. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And what’s the new finished floor height going to be? NANCY DWYER : The new finished floor height is going to be MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The elevation. NANCY DWYER : We’re raising it it’s approximately 5 feet above grade. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Five feet above grade. NANCY DWYER : Which would bring it to an elevation of 9 feet. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So then it’ll become FEMA compliant and that’s the whole thing for the flood insurance and what not. NANCY DWYER : Exactly. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And you propose to maintain the current footprint? NANCY DWYER : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And expand that? NANCY DWYER : We’re working with the current footprint all the room layouts everything is to remain the same. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You’re going to be removing the existing foundation correct? NANCY DWYER : Yes. The house will be raised and that would be completely removed. They’ll excavate for the proper footings and then put a true foundation in there. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well when you say raised you mean the house will be demoed it will be removed from the site. NANCY DWYER : Well the plan is actually to support the house and actually raise it to the foundation underneath it and set the house back down onto the foundation. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so the house is in good structural condition? NANCY DWYER : The floor beams itself yes. The walls also are in decent condition however they’re only 6 foot 10 plate heights and they would rather get the true 8 foot ceiling height so we are reframing the exterior walls within the existing frame itself. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So you propose to keep the footage of the first floor deck? NANCY DWYER : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But remove all the walls. NANCY DWYER : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is there any way that you could move it and give us more of a side yard? NANCY DWYER : I think that the homeowners would be agreeable to moving it off of the side yard. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Maybe a little bit you know. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting NANCY DWYER : I think part of that would have to would be dependent upon what the actual cost would be to not only raise the house and support it where it is but raise the house support it and then shift it so I think that that is going to determine whether they can truly do it or not do it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What’s the square footage of the house? NANCY DWYER : It’s small. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : 800, 750? NANCY DWYER : Yea it’s about 800 I think it’s 796 actually. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But I don’t know what the cost would be but almost to save the first floor decking do you think it’s worth it? NANCY DWYER : I would imagine it’s a minimal cost being that all the utilities are being run as new. The plumbing, the electrical everything is new. Everything has been shut off to the house as it is right now. It’s been sitting as just a shell since the hurricane took place. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : How much do you think you could move it over or your inclined to move it over to give us more of a side yard without it being too much of an issue? NANCY DWYER : I would have to look at the site because number one there is the septic that we have to contend with. The septic is being relocated to the front yard so we have to make sure that where it’s proposed if we were to move the house, we’re not interfering with possibly relocating the septic system yet again and I don’t know if the surrounding properties have wells or if everybody is on public water so where our septic is going could dictate whether or not the house can be moved or not moved depending on what the surrounding properties contain. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So what should we do? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Notice of Disapproval said demo so you’re free really to do whatever you know you want to do. The good news is that it’s a demo so if in fact you found it really was a demo when you started digging in and you don’t have to worry about that. Maybe what we can do is give you some time to talk to your client and investigate what the options are with septic and well and perhaps gives us an amended plan. Obviously we want to keep they’re small properties and we want to keep at least one side yard substantial for emergency access and so on. It’s only 70 foot wide. It’s really tiny. NANCY DWYER : It leans more towards one side and then the other side is pretty wide open. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that’s right. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : You could have two conforming side yards with these dimensions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You might be able to and then you know it’s possible that you could have two conforming side yards and just leave the bulkhead setback where it is because you really if you’re going to need that room in the front yard for the septic anyway. As it is the steps and stuff it’s going to look even closer to the street than NANCY DWYER : Sure because the elevation we’re going to have to get down to MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don’t have a big issue with the bulkhead setback because it exists already and a similar situation to other properties. Perhaps if you could look at other parcels and see what the new dwellings setbacks are I mean side yards. I’m not a professional builder but I think it would be to the advantage of the applicant if they were to be able to build a brand new house from the get go and not have to deal with an existing platform. MEMBER DANTES : The only thing is what about the (inaudible) to the dormer 50 sq. ft.? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do. NANCY DWYER : We’re shy of that. Just shy of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Than what? NANCY DWYER : Well actually the footprint itself is smaller if we end up doing with the steeper roof pitch gaining the loft space on the second floor we can take that into consideration CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As habitable NANCY DWYER : being that now we don’t have that currently. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You only need 750 on the main floor if you have second floor. NANCY DWYER : That’s correct. And that’s what we will end up doing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that’s another issue that you might want to talk to your client about I mean minimum is 850 usually to constitute a dwelling and it’s very easy to accomplish you know you’re just a few feet shy you can I’m sure gain that some place. It’s usually we’re trying to get rid of square footage here we’re trying to add square footage. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I think it would be the benefit of all if you could come up with conforming side yards setbacks and perhaps build a little larger house would even benefit the applicant and not feel constrained because you want to keep the existing footprint and because you want to just maintain that side yard. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting NANCY DWYER : Now I have just one question. As far as the 850 sq. ft. if this is a seasonal dwelling as opposed to a year round residence does that square footage change or is that still it’s still the same? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s still it’s either a cottage a preexisting non-conforming cottage or it’s a dwelling and if it’s a dwelling whether it’s seasonal or not it’s gotta be 850. NANCY DWYER : Okay. MEMBER HORNING : On the survey isn’t the proposed deck showing of 4.8 side yard? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. NANCY DWYER : No that 4.8 is the elevation. MEMBER HORNING : Oh oh okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh. Now that deck is going to be elevated as well I assume. NANCY DWYER : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes of course okay. MEMBER DANTES : Also in the current code there is no definition for seasonal dwelling it’s just a dwelling is a dwelling. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anybody else have anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just want to reiterate that I’ve built two houses recently and both of those houses were at 750 downstairs with one bedroom making the total square footage 850 upstairs so I’m just saying to you unless the code has changed since I constructed both of those houses that’s my opinion. NANCY DWYER : It’s possible to get the square footage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Without changing the footprint. NANCY DWYER : Without changing the footprint because we are building this with a steeper roof pitch so that we do have some habitable area on the second floor so I can adjust those dimensions if I need to gain the additional square footage but we will be able to accomplish it on this footprint. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so how about if we adjourn to next month and give you time to go back to your client and see what you can do about addressing the issues we talked about ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting and then you can prior to that hearing submit whatever revisions on the survey and or drawings that are needed. Does that make sense to everybody? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Again I’m personally fine with the bulkhead setback and if you can come with conforming side yards your client can have the advantage of maybe perhaps wanting to build a larger house. NANCY DWYER : Yea I’ll review it all with them and as I said I’ll review the site as well to see if there is any additional restrictions to be mindful of. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The septic and so on. Sounds good, anyone else in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve sorry to adjourn the hearing to May 7 th at 9:15 a.m. okay. NANCY DWYER : Ok thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who seconded that? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6847 – PATRICIA MACINTYRE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Patricia Macintyre # 6847. This is applicant’s request for a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B (13). ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting The applicant is the owner requesting authorization to establish an Accessory Apartment in an accessory structure, located at: 9875 Main Bayview Road in Southold. Hi how are you? PATRICIA MACINTYRE : Good morning. I’m Patricia Macintyre (inaudible) applied for a variance to expand the existing structure into a small apartment 750 square feet and that is for my son who will be living with me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay just we just have to make sure it’s being picked up on the tape recorder transcript. What you’re actually applying for is a Special Exception permit not a variance just so the record is clear and we’ve all inspected the site so we know that you have enough on-site parking. Tell us who you want to have living in that. PATRICIA MACINTYRE : My son is a writer he needs space to actually have privacy to be able to do this and he is currently living with me and the situation is just not adequate right now and he’s a grown man and he needs his own space and to my advantage he’s going to be helping me maintain the property cause I’m getting to a point now where it’s more than I can handle. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. What is does anybody know what the date of the C.O. on that it’s a Pre? So you have are proposing storage above the PATRICIA MACINTYRE : Yes much needed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and it’s just the open stairs that are there just going to remain open to the second floor which is PATRICIA MACINTYRE : Yes. I currently have no storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unheated storage area? PATRICIA MACINTYRE : Yes absolutely. Since Sandy I’ve had so much damage in the basement with water I can’t it’s useless it’s a converted potato storage area and it’s just not adequate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Gerry questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I had seen the place with you Mrs. MacIntyre and I failed to ask you the question why we weren’t going upstairs and that was because it’s not done and it was closed off for the just strictly storage. PATRICIA MACINTYRE : It’s only storage. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I noticed that you have three parking spaces mentioned on your survey or site plan indicating where cars would be parked yours and I assume your sons. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting PATRICIA MACINTYRE : My son yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And anybody else who would be visiting. PATRICIA MACINTYRE : No I just need two parking spaces. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George anything? MEMBER HORNING : I don’t have anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? Have nothing to say about it. 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 GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We will write up a draft decision and we will have a decision for you two weeks from today. You can call the office the next day and talk to Vicki and she’ll give you an update. You’re very welcome have a good day. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6849 – FHP ENTERPRISES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for FHP Enterprises # 6849 a request for Variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s February 3, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for construction of a new single family dwelling, at; less than the code required rear yard setback of 50 feet, located at: 485 Hickory Avenue (corner Hickory Avenue) in Southold. CHARLES CUDDY : Morning Charles Cuddy for the applicant. I have an office address of 445 Griffing Ave Riverhead New York. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you raise that mic just a little bit please so we can get you better. Lift it right up. CHARLES CUDDY : Just like this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There you go. I think that’ll work best. CHARLES CUDDY : With my voice that’s much better. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a new two story single family dwelling with a garage with a rear yard setback of 39.7 feet where the code requires 50 feet. CHARLES CUDDY : Our problem is that we unfortunately have three roads at least the Building Department claims that there are three roads and if you go to the site you can see that they’re not exactly open developed roads but they’re there and one of the ones lower one actually appears to me to be a driveway the one that’s labeled right of way but never the less it’s called a right of way and the Building Department says that that’s a road and therefore we have three front yards and that’s really our problem. They tried to face the house towards Goose Creek and that’s why it’s set up like it is here so that they would at least have some you can look between the houses that are on Oak Ave you can probably get a small view of the Creek and that’s why they set the house exactly where they did here. The variance is a 10.3 foot variance so it’s not a large variance that we’re asking for but we don’t know any other way to set the house that would be appropriately (inaudible) and ask the Board to consider that it’s not going to impact the community in any sense because the community is houses about the size that we are proposing. It certainly not going to have an environmental impact, we’re keeping a good part of the wooded lot there’s trees on it. It’s large trees and we’re keeping it that way. I don’t believe it’s going to have as I say any adverse environmental impact. I don’t think that there’s really a serious or alternative to try to move the house around cause the lot really doesn’t lend ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting itself to that based on the fact that we have those three roads. So we would ask the Board and we didn’t create this situation here I mean we’re putting a house but we didn’t create the lot the way it is and we didn’t create the road network that’s there. So I’d ask the Board to grant the variance to permit us to have the rear yard at the 39 foot level and so that we can go ahead and construct this home. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if the Board has any questions. Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I guess the primary front yard I would call along Hickory Avenue with a driveway where the proposed driveway is cut into would that be correct? CHARLES CUDDY : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And your subject to a right of way that you are doing is (inaudible) it doesn’t seem to need any variance relief in that respect I mean the (inaudible) other extension on Hickory I can see the need for rear yard setback relief. Did you try to draft to try to do some other or propose some other type of home that would not need a variance? CHARLES CUDDY : It would be I think he wanted to construct a home about the size that the homes are in this area. He didn’t try and lengthen the home out if that’s what you’re talking about. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea. CHARLES CUDDY : There’s no garage included and it’s not a significant wide home it’s 40 feet across so it’s hard to answer your question it would be difficult to put it in the pocket that you’re talking about. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Are there any other parcels in the neighborhood that have similar rear yard setbacks to what you propose? CHARLES CUDDY : I would think so because looking I haven’t measured them but in going to the area a number of times these parcels on the tax map are relatively small parcels and so their yards are certainly not much bigger than 40 feet in depth. I would say that (inaudible) cause most of the parcels in this neighborhood this is a 21,000 square foot parcel. Most of the parcels in the tax map are smaller than this parcel. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING : No questions. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Mr. Cuddy is Birch Ave is that one of the roads you were referring to as not being one that’s able to be accessed? CHARLES CUDDY : When you go there it’s pretty hard to determine if there’s a Birch Avenue. I mean CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s really like a dirt road. CHARLES CUDDY : They’re all dirt. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not even a road it’s like a dirt path. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There’s a tremendous amount of snow of course when I was there and I have to tell you that and this is always my criticism in situations like this I mean it’s a beautiful area we were just discussing the house around the corner it’s going to be raised but the access to this driveway is very very poor. I would hope that the property owners would do something regarding that. CHARLES CUDDY : I think he will because I think to sell the house I think he’s gotta do that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anyone else? MEMBER DANTES : Does your client own the right of way or is it (inaudible) CHARLES CUDDY : No the client does not own the right of way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess it provides access to the adjacent properties. CHARLES CUDDY : Yea it’s like I say it’s like a driveway when you go down there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don’t have any other questions. It’s pretty clear what the issues are. Anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6843 – PECONIC LANDING @ SOUTHOLD, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Peconic Landing @ Southold, Inc. # 6843 request for variance from Article XXII Section 280-105 and the Building Inspector’s December 3, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct a tennis court fence, at; 1) more than the code required maximum 6 foot height when located in the front yard, located at: 1205 NYS Route 25 (aka North Road) (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Greenport. CHARLES CUDDY : Charles Cuddy on behalf of Peconic Landing @ Southold, Inc. We have under construction Peconic Landing 46 apartments and also skilled nursing unit and a memory care unit. It was Board approved actually more than a year ago the height of that (inaudible) put the apartment building (inaudible) site with the tennis court move the tennis court from the west side to the east side and in September of 2014 we had approval for the tennis court. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What date was that? CHARLES CUDDY : I’ll give you a copy of that Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Okay. CHARLES CUDDY : I can hand up copies for everybody. Although there’s some disagreement I think in the Building Department its determination was made that if you have a fence or a tennis court it’s 10 feet high which is the norm that you must get a variance application to prove it. This situation where it’s in the front yard if the front yard is 300 feet back from the road so it’s not exactly in the front yard it’s visible the distance between and I think you may have it on the survey but distance between the court and the nearest cottage Peconic Landing ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting is 117 feet but that cottage is not going to be a residential unit. That’s going to be a recreation center so it’s not going to impact that particular cottage. We to the west of it the road is Brecknock Road that’s over 100 feet away and then there is a house much further in than that visibly can’t see the house from the tennis court. I think that a tennis court fence is indegenious to the tennis court. You can’t have a tennis court without that fence. It just doesn’t work. It’s part of the tennis court. More importantly right next to us the Kontokosta winery has just erected an 8 or 9 foot deer fence along the entire Main Rd. Certainly that’s some significance to it in the sense that there is a high fence that’s right next to us and I understand deer fences are allowed but this is a fence that’s going to offend no one because there’s no one nearby. As I say I think it’s part of the tennis court. It’s not just something that you can say is a perimeter fence. It’s not a boundary line fence it’s a fence that makes the tennis court possible in playing tennis. I don’t think there’s going to be any impact on any part of the community anything at Peconic Landing because as we said the nearest cottage is going to be a recreation center. There’s going to be no environmental impact that I can see and we don’t really have an alternative. You want a tennis court you have to put up a fence and the fence has to be (inaudible) feet high. That’s the way (inaudible) So I don’t know in any sense that this is something that is a so substantial that it’s something that the Board should have a problem with. It’s a fence that’s normal for a tennis court. There are plenty of tennis courts in the Town that have it and on this site it’s not going to impact anybody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not that this is necessary but I do want to add to just explore the fact that from time to time we have had tennis courts that we’ve granted these fences for that they actually recessed them down somewhat you know a few feet by the drainage so that the actual above grade elevation of the fence was more like 8 feet, 7 feet. Was there any discussion is there a practical hardship in doing that? CHARLES CUDDY : Well I think if we get somebody that’s a good tennis player (inaudible) cause the ball can travel. Certainly travels 8 feet high. If somebody slams on the court it goes and you see that in professional tennis. I don’t know how it would affect the players. I think it might be hard not to have at least 8 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No no it the fence would be 10 feet high but the surface of the court is recessed maybe 2 or 3 feet in the ground. You step down to the court. So from the court it’s 10 feet but from the grade it is a couple of feet CHARLES CUDDY : I think the court though is already set the court is there so I don’t know if they can CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see cause the court has received site plan approval. Ok I just wanted to pursue it in the record just to see what the ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting CHARLES CUDDY : I understand. I didn’t understand initially but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because that has been the case from time to time not always but that has been one way to handle the extra height CHARLES CUDDY : But the court is actually in place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In place. Any question from questions from anybody? Gerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes. There’s no attempt to light this court. CHARLES CUDDY : Oh no absolutely not no lights. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There’ll be no wild playing of music or anything of that nature? Not that most of people that play tennis listen to music but CHARLES CUDDY : There shouldn’t be any no noise (inaudible) MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just need to ask you this question for the record is there any other reason is there any other site that it could be placed like on the opposite side of Brecknock Hall or where that long building is? CHARLES CUDDY : We were asked that by Planning Board too and the answer is no cause they wanted to extend sometime that barn area there for greater use. That’s basically where all the maintenance comes from cause the new site is going to have to extend the maintenance area so we couldn’t put it there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George. MEMBER HORNING : I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I have a quick one. Did you say there was a tennis court already on the property and it was moved to this location? CHARLES CUDDY : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Did that tennis court have a fence as well? CHARLES CUDDY : It did. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Was it 10 feet high? ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting CHARLESE CUDDY : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay. No further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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 this hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6839 – WILLIAM A. PENNEY, III and SUKRU ILGIN (CV) HEARING # 6840 – WILLIAM A. PENNEY, III and SUKRU ILGIN (CV) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m going to open the next two applications at the same time so that we can talk about any of the issues that are pertinent so the first application is from the same applicant. The first one is William A. Penney III and Sukru Ilgin (CV) under # 6839 and this is a request for Special Exception under Article XI Section 280-48B(12) to construct gasoline service station with convenience store. Located at 45450 County Road 48 (aka North Road, corner Young’s Avenue) Southold and the next application is for variance relief is the same applicant William A. Penney III and Sukru Ilgin (CV) # 6840. This is a request for Variances from Article XI, Sections 280-50A and 280-50C and the Building Inspector’s September 24, 2014, amended ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting October 17, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to convert existing vehicle detailing, RV sales and service shop into gas station with convenience store and construct new pump islands, at; 1) proposed front canopy at less than the code required setback of 100 feet from the right of way, 2) proposed front pump island at more than the code permitted 60 linear feet of frontage on one street. Located at 45450 County Rd. 48 (aka North Road, corner Young’s Avenue) Southold. CHARLES CUDDY : Good morning again Charles Cuddy for the applicant office at 445 Griffing Ave. Riverhead. Just to point the record will contain both the Special Exception and the Variance the entire application that we made. I’m going to refer to some things that are in the variance application and the special it will be together. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. As you are aware this proposal requires site plan approval and I understand you just applied to Planning. CHARLES CUDDY : Yes that’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. It’s our general policy when things run concurrently that if there is minimal testimony you want to provide us with that’s okay. We’ve advertised and we’ll see if anyone in the audience has comments but we would like to limit the testimony because we will adjourn in order to get comments from Planning Board. They haven’t been able without an application to give us anything substantive and so until they can convey we just want to be on the same page and run this as efficiently as possible so we will be adjourning to a later date. But let me just enter into the record that the front yard canopy as proposed is at 23 feet from Route 48 where the code requires 100. The back canopy is at 84 feet where the code requires 100 and the front pump island is at 75 feet where the code requires 60 foot minimum and the Planning Board site plan approval is required. Having said that I don’t know if you’ve had an opportunity yet to receive a letter I think we just got. CHARLES CUDDY : I have it and I had seen it yes and I’m aware of the Planning Board’s concern. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok then this is a letter from a neighbor. CHARLES CUDDY : That I don’t think I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s what I’m talking about. It’s the one we just got. Here it is. I’ll read it. It’s very short and we’ll get you a copy. This is we the owners of the residence at 3460 Young’s Avenue in Southold have the following concerns. The overall size of the project seems extreme for this location. The traffic existing on Young’s Avenue is directly across from our driveway which would be a danger concern and headlight glare at night would be directed into our windows. Hours of operation should be limited to avoid noise and light pollution and 4. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting canopies would be unsightly and disturb the county atmosphere. Respectfully submitted Robert Guarriello and John Bertani. That’s all we’ve received from the public and you have ample opportunity to address that and I’m sure those concerns will also be addressed by the Planning Board. Is there anything in general that you would like to enter briefly? CHARLES CUDDY : Yea I would just like to say that I think that this site has had Special Exception uses for the purpose we are talking about and that is in 1959, 1960 and ’61 there were Special Exceptions granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold for a gasoline service station. That was in 1959 and then there was a C.O. issued in 1960 for that use and then in 1961 there was another C.O. issued for the three uses. It was a business building a gasoline service station and a garden center and that was based upon a Special Exception approval made in 1960 again by the Zoning Board of Appeals. You have had subsequent to that time other decisions of the Board granting the Area Variances to the existing owner who is now selling to the client I represent Mr. Ilgin and cause he’s leaving this area but I think all of those are included in the package that we gave you and I would just ask you to be aware of that because I think those Special Exceptions do have meaning and I think that we can’t just ignore that fact and (inaudible) still governs but we are prepared and I’m not going to go thru it today. We can go through the Special Exception conditions that you have in the Code. I think that everybody is also aware that the surrounding area is basically a business area zone wise and no that it’s not necessarily used that way but it’s zoned either light business or business and I think those are included on (inaudible) but certainly we will come back as you said to go through this again and Mr. Strang of course is here so if there are some preliminary questions that people have we can answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the Board is well aware of the history of the property and prior Special Exceptions and so on and of course we’re also privy to the fact that variance relief as applied for may change as the Planning Board you know gets involved with more detail on the site planning so I think it makes sense to hold in ambience any discussion of the variance relief other than to enter into the record as currently applied for. Before there’s any questions is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Why don’t you come and tell us what you’d like us to know. SCOTT LATHAM : Scott Latham 1755 Old North Rd. which is directly north of the site. What I’m concerned with is I believe it was the Town’s policy to leave 48 a rural corridor. Charnews farm is in proximity I think it surrounds and comes up behind this site, across the street is preserved and then north of that is all preserved farmland I believe. It’s nice it’s dark. I’m just concerned do you really want to intensify the use? What’s there is now is fine it opens at 8 closes at 4 there’s no light pollution. I don’t know what the hours of operation would be but the canopies the light from there the intensified use of both coming in and out again it’s like Valero which is ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting 24 hours it’s different than say (inaudible) closing down at 9 o’clock or whatever and a convenience store I thought the whole idea for a master plan was to funnel people down into the Hamlets so that the Hamlet businesses can take advantage they can make sales or what not. There are two bagels shops that are east of there so we this guy this gentleman selling coffee and bagels when there are established businesses already to the east. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you so much for your time. Anything from the Board at this point? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just wanna reflect on one thing Mr. Cuddy said. I’m giving my age away Mr. Cuddy but I remember when the old gasoline station was there and that of course was a mom and pop operation and a very very low impact garden center. My question to you is not now but it will be later I understand that you’re keeping the existing building but what’s the real purpose and I’m not asking for you to answer that now but what’s the real purpose of both pump islands one in front and one in back further intense use in the back? Based upon some of the comments that Scott just brought up this is a transformation from a relatively low impact they’re used to you know quite an extensive business and (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright is there anything else from the Board if not I think we should just adjourn to get some comments from Planning Board. Now the question I have adjourn to when? Rather than adjourning without a date we can adjourn for a month or two and then if you weren’t far enough along we would continue to adjourn or we can adjourn without a date and you can let us know when you want to be put back on the calendar. Do you have any thoughts about that? We can maybe do it in June. CHARLES CUDDY : If we could speak to that 60 days would be good so that there would be some time frame that (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that’s what I was thinking so like June adjourn to June what’s the dates June 4 th we’ll adjourn both of these applications to June 4 th at let’s just say 9:30. So moved is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. That applies to both applications. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6851 – KENNETH and JOANN ZAHLER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kenneth and Joann Zahler # 6851 this is a request for Variance from Article XXII Section 280-105C3 the Building Inspector’s January 5, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct deer fence, at; 1) deer fence proposed in location other than side and rear yard, located at: 63735 County Road 48 (aka North Road) (adj. to Long Island Sound) Greenport, NY come forward and state your name for the record please. Right into the mic just lift it up so you can comfortably talk. KENNETH ZAHLER : Good afternoon everyone. The last fourteen years I lived in a house in Cutchogue and my wife was outside most days spraying to keep the deer from destroying the shrubbery and after fourteen years of doing the new house that we’re building on the sound she said can’t we put up deer fencing so that I don’t have to keep doing that. So that’s why I’m here today. Of the almost three acres that we own I’m intending on only enclosing about less than half of that probably with deer fencing. The closest I would get to the road is probably about 250 or more feet from the road. That’s about as close as it will get. I don’t think any I think by the way I do think that the regulation limiting deer fencing coming near a road between the house and the street is not a bad idea and in most neighborhoods it shouldn’t be allowed. Like I said we’re back very far. The fence will be over 250 feet from the road. It won’t be visible from the road and the on the side lines where it goes near the side lines it’ll be screened with appropriate landscaping. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you tell us a bit about how this common driveway works. KENNETH ZAHLER : Sure. One individual owned all three lots about 9 acres altogether and he built a house on the easterly lot and the westerly lot and he left the middle one vacant for future plans for himself. Things changed and he decided to sell everything. He sold the westerly lot already and he sold the vacant piece to me and the piece on the east is still on the market. Since he owned all three and I think he envisioned a family compound he wasn’t really paying any attention where driveways were going and when you look at it on the three lot map you ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting see that the driveways for the easterly and westerly lot are actually located on the center piece of property. I had requested that they do a lot line change and reconfigure and they refused and said no just take it the way it is and you have to give an easement to the two lot owners adjacent. We decided okay fine we’ll do that. So it’s one driveway that goes for I don’t know maybe 150 feet or so and then they branch off into three different directions. Yes sir. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What kind of landscaping are you anticipating in reference to screening the deer fence? KENNETH ZAHLER : Something that looks natural. My intention is in someplace probably rhodies and andrometers and other places maybe cherry laurel maybe some beach grasses something like that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : This is an 8 foot fence is that correct? KENNETH ZAHLER : Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You weren’t contemplating any Leyland cypress on the outside of the fence to totally block it from the road? KENNETH ZAHLER : I was not contemplating that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay were these that you were going to plant on the inside of the fence? KENNETH ZAHLER : Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Correct. KENNETH ZAHLER : I you know if the Town felt strongly that they would like to see landscaping on the outside so that if somebody looked from Route 48 north 250 feet away and they wouldn’t want to see a post for a fence that should be screened I would do that and the gate that I’ll have to put in of course fencing for deer if you don’t put a gate up it’s not going to really do anything. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Right I understand they’ve gotten used to those little rumble strips. KENNETH ZAHLER : Yea I was talking to a couple of landscapers and said they’ve tried using them and they find that in most cases the deer can easily jump over 12, 14, 16 feet of the rumble strip so that a gate’s necessary. I wouldn’t put anything even that I don’t want it to be obvious. It’s not going to be something wrought iron or white probably natural cedar maybe with a drift wood gray stain on it. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How wide the two driveways that branch off yours goes say wiggles through the center about how wide do you think those paths are? KENNETH ZAHLER : How wide would the driveway be? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea you know the one to the east or the west. KENNETH ZAHLER : Yea right pretty much typical driveway width you know about 10 to 12 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because I’d like to discuss with you the fact that since they are easements to two other dwellings we have to make sure that they emergency equipment has room to get to that should there god forbid you have fire or something like that and given the odd configuration of all of this that could be accomplished if in fact the front yard fencing was taken back instead of notching it in to allow this strip on either side which are essentially side yards really. If you put a line across here and have your gate here it certainly does reduce the opportunity to put vegetation well you can plant they’ll just get eaten. But I mean it gives you some front yard on closer to your house and it leaves these open width wise you know because the code requires a 15 foot clearance on either side of a driveway or right of way for fire access. You have to 15 feet on either side of the driveway let’s call it for emergency access if it came back here then it’s just you your clear then if they have to go off of the road they could cause it’s just land and put your fence over here and then it’s going to be a very very far setback from county road but these of course are permitted this here and so then it’s just this piece across here. Are you seeing what I’m doing here? MEMBER HORNING : Much less of a variance in terms of footage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea. Well actually it’s interesting because technically these are side yards so in a way this is a longer strip than a front yard than this piece up here but it’s allowing all of these adjacent properties to have to have access through this one entry or curb cut so safe access. See what I’m saying Gerry? KENNETH ZAHLER : You do realize that more or less in the location where I’ve drawn the orange line showing the proposed fence there are trees there so I would be changing the amount of available space for a truck to get in. The trees are already there they’ve been there for maybe a century. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was so icy and snowy the day we made site inspections who could tell it was like please Santa’s sled is what I need to get in there. KENNETH ZAHLER : For the last 12 months I’ve been trying to build. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s no small challenge in this weather for us to go do site inspections. If you want to stay up here you can but you need to talk into one of these mics or you can just go back to the KENNETH ZAHLER : What I was going to say is I can guarantee that in no location on the sides would I go closer to the property line than existing trees. In other words I would honor the fact that there is a tree at this location and here’s that person’s property line. My fence would be on my side of the tree so I would definitely not shrink the size of their drive area for truck use. From a practical standpoint I can tell you there were times where our driveway in the middle had gotten so muddy from the weather that we used one of the side drives that tractor trailers and Riverhead Building Supply trucks made it back and forth. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The problem is (inaudible) rear wheel drive front wheel drive or all- wheel drive and I went up there with front wheel drive and boy it was questionable. KENNETH ZAHLER : Yeah. It’s been terrible yea. There have been some days where I just parked at the street and walked up. I keep a separate pair of boots in the car just for that purpose. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Just remember that the discussion that we’re having now from the chairperson’s view, the purpose of it I suspect and she’s going to correct me if I’m wrong is to keep the visibility of the deer fence well away from the road. KENNETH ZAHLER : Absolutely. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Less screening. KENNETH ZAHLER : And if the decision on the part of the ZBA is that rather than 250 or 260 from the road if they wanted to be a minimum of 300 from the road you know obviously we’ll honor and follow the recommendation. MEMBER DANTES : Looking at these other driveways on the plan I think I drove down one of the stone driveways when you put your proposed new driveway in what happens to those two driveways? KENNETH ZAHLER : They each serve the house one to the left one to the right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you show me please where they actually I mean I know we know the houses here but okay this is a branch and this is a branch where do they enter the actual property? It looks like they come along with KENNETH ZAHLER : This house over here has a detached garage right around there so that driveway goes around the house and up to the detached garage. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so it actually goes on to the property there? KENNETH ZAHLER : No. It’s just exactly what you see. It doesn’t leave my property until it get right to there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To here. So it’s there and then the same here? Just about like that? KENNETH ZAHLER : Yes. That’s exactly right. This one doesn’t have a garage. They have a parking area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But that’s the entrance to their lot and that’s the entrance to their lot. KENNETH ZAHLER : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure I understood the movement on the site. KENNETH ZAHLER : And by the way I have had conversations with the woman to the west about the idea of a deer fencing and she planned on doing the same thing and she said I’m all for it. If you can do I’ll split the cost on the one between us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay any other questions or comments, George? MEMBER HORNING : Yea based on what the chairperson was saying why would you not consider just extending it up right where those other driveways part off instead of all this more additional fencing? KENNETH ZAHLER : I guess just it gives flexibility of choice of shrubs. But obviously if that’s the ZBA decision then we’ll adjust or change the shrub choices. We’ve already have had conversations with landscape local guys on the North Fork and which ones the deer don’t eat and which ones they do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pretty much everything. Mahonia, you’re safe with Mahonia that’s about it. KENNETH ZAHLER : I’ve never even heard of that. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe spirea. KENNETH ZAHLER : Spirea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe. MEMBER DANTES : The hungrier the deer get the more things that they’ll probably eat. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting KENNETH ZAHLER : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s kind of a losing battle for everybody here. KENNETH ZAHLER : At our Cutchogue house we found that even hollies with the prickly points on their leaves they’ll eat them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh they eat MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That’s dessert. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Any questions from you Eric, at this point? MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I think it’s just incumbent upon the applicant to tell us what he intends to do based upon our request or your request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What do you mean? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well what he intends to do. Is he anticipating giving us another map with the line put back placed back closer to the house so that we don’t have to screen as much from the road? KENNETH ZAHLER : You can give me your decision right now what you want to do what you want to restrict what you allow or not allow and I’ll go accordingly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I would like to actually know is if in fact keep those rights of way here the fence here how many feet back it is from your property line. I’m guessing that’s around 260 so we’d have to figure out KENNETH ZAHLER : It’s about 500. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re guessing that that’s approximately 500 feet from the property line? KENNETH ZAHLER : Yea. The whole property is almost 1000 so the place that you’ve drawn that line in there pretty much 500 maybe it’s 450. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually it looks like it’s a little more than half. No it depends cause it’s a diagonal. Okay well I think what we’re going to do here is adjourn this to the Special ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting Meeting so we can think about it and that’s in two weeks and then if we have no further questions or suggestions we’ll close it and then we will have two weeks after that to make a decision. We have 60 days but we won’t wait that long. We actually have 62 days from the date we close this. I’m not going to close it today. I’m going to wait two weeks and close it at the Special Meeting in the likely event that the Board has other questions cause once it’s closed that’s it we have to just deal with what we’ve got here. But if we have the time to think it through and we have no further questions we’ll close it in two weeks and then we’ll take another two weeks to write the draft and it will be a month from today well, it would be June we’ll deliberate and May 7 th Public Hearing earlier in the morning. If you well I don’t know that that’s necessary if you would like to do that if you would like to take a look at this and bring in another survey with the orange here with a setback and showing clearance for all these rights of way and where you would want to put a gate probably wherever your driveway is I suppose then you can submit that between now and well as soon as possible now or in a week or so something like that. We’ll get copies of that and we’ll look at that and then KENNETH ZAHLER : Is that what you’d like? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I you know we don’t vote at this meeting but I think certainly the farther back the better and then it makes it quite remote from a very public road. The possibility of screening it (inaudible) so that it doesn’t appear to be there and the fact that then these other rights of way will stay unencumbered and open even if they are trees at least there won’t be you know you had to jig and jog around them at least that would be a consideration and so I think we have more substantial justification under those circumstances but that’s my opinion. The Board everybody on the Board has an equal vote and they will have their opinions too. I’m gathering that this is of interest to the Board. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes it is to me. MEMBER HORNING : We can poll the Board to see how many would like to see another plan. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I Just want to ask if you intend to put any measurements on that you have scaled we’ll accept them if not I’ll scale it or we’ll scale it ourselves you know from the depth that you’re talking about. KENNETH ZAHLER : Sure. MEMBER HORNING : Looking at it will clearly define by the end of the right of way. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Just submit another plan. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting KENNETH ZAHLER : The feeling I’m getting is that a couple of you would like to see the fence that goes across and parallel with Route 48 at the location at the northerly end of the two right of ways. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That makes sense. KENNETH ZAHLER : I’ll drop off eight more copies with a line in that location. Only need 6, piece of cake. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the audience I think I asked this who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special meeting on April 16 th. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6846 – F1 MOSS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for F1 Moss, LLC. This is a request for Variances from Article III Section 280-15 and Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector’s December 22, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for construction of an accessory garage and a deck addition to an existing single family dwelling, at; 1) accessory garage proposed at more than the code required maximum size of 750 square feet, 2) deck addition at less than code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet, located at: 805 Aborn Road (adj. to a pond) in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the application? Okay we’ve all been out to the site just so you know. Would you please just state your name for the record. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting WILLIAM KELLY : Bill Kelly authorized agent for the owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. This is a proposal for a 2,016 square foot garage an accessory garage for a private car collection. It’s 42 by 48 feet by 20 foot high. Is that correct? WILLIAM KELLY : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a single floor single story. WILLIAM KELLY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes located in a front yard where the code requires a rear yard and a front yard setback I’m not quite sure what that is, the code requires 50 I couldn’t read the survey. WILLIAM KELLY : We have a front yard setback at 50. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At 50. WILLIAM KELLY : Yea front yard being Aborn. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aborn. Alright you have a Pre CO for one family dwelling with a screened porch, brick patio, and accessory garage so there’s already an accessory garage on the property. WILLIAM KELLY : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now are you are they over 60,000 square feet on the lot? No alright so you are aware of the fact that the code limits the accessory an accessory structure on that size lot to 750 square feet? WILLIAM KELLY : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you’re proposing 2,016 square feet? WILLIAM KELLY : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how does that how is that a necessity that degree of variance relief? WILLIAM KELLY : In this particular case a couple of things. As far as the way the code is written now I mean it used to be the code was written different if that were the case as far as the size the size wouldn’t be an issue because it was not over on lot coverage but now that the code’s been changed and it has been rewritten (inaudible) to 750 square feet on lots that are less than ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting 60,000 square feet but in this particular case this is the owner has a private car collection. This is his parcel of property and you know he has no place else to put his entire car collection other than on this piece of property so in order to keep at in a location where he resides at and he’d like to keep it at a location where he resides at that would be the reason for the relief of the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you pull the mic up a little bit so we can get you on the recording. WILLIAM KELLY : But the I mean actually what I did do is I have built a similar type building and he wants to keep the area in the cottage style and I have built a similar type building. It’s probably twice as big but I brought a photograph of it. I kind of blocked it out to show you what the structure itself would look like if you’re interested in that and you know the it’s just as far as the collection he has to put it and we tried to reduce it to the size that would work for his collection and it’s large enough to house 8 cars that’s what his collection is 8 cars and so we kept it there’s not enough room in there for you know really maintenance or any type of work to be done to the vehicles there’s enough room to store your cars. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there are a couple of options that we can explore because you’re asking for an enormous variance relief. I mean 750 is the maximum and this is like what 3 or 4 times the WILLIAM KELLY : Like I said ten years ago it wouldn’t be an issue today it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well but that was then. WILLIAM KELLY : I understand I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can’t go by what was. WILLIAM KELLY : You can’t go back in time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did a lot of things back then. WILLIAM KELLY : I mean if you look you all went out and looked at the property and I had it stacked and located you know it’s a secluded area. The impact on the area wouldn’t be that great from that standpoint and I understand it is a sizeable increase over what the allowed is. CHAIRPERSON KELLY : Well one of the options you know maybe none of them are exactly what your client wants but if that garage got attached to the house then we have no problem with either lot coverage or size because it’s attached. WILLIAM KELLY : That’s correct ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other option is to build two. WILLIAM KELLY : That’s again been CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You still won’t have a lot coverage issue. WILLIAM KELLY : I know and to me that’s a funny thing where I can build two I can three I can probably build four on this property at 720 square feet and all I wanna do is build one at 2,000 square feet cause right now my lot coverage percentage I think I had figured out is 8.9% after we build the garage and what am I allowed 20% so I can build a lot of these garages and it just seems you know and sometimes you take a look at that and say is that logical thinking to do that. Yes we can do that and you know the Town would be happy the Zoning Board of Appeals would be happy but in reality all we’re asking for is one you know at this size rather than building three of them at 720 square feet and I don’t think that’s unreasonable when you look at it like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, one of the way the Board is obligated by law to look at these variance requests is we cannot personalize them because these variances run with the land. What one owner might require that’s very personal to their hobby or their taste or whatever. Then the Town they flip it they sell it somebody else whatever and there it is and somebody else winds up using it as a house. I mean it’s bigger than my house. WILLIAM KELLY : Well if somebody was to use it as a house that wouldn’t be allowed by CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I’m saying is the reason that the code has changed WILLIAM KELLY : I know why the reason yea I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was because we were getting cabanas that were the size of literally dwellings and bigger on small properties. WILLIAM KELLY : I understand that and I know why the code was changed but in this particular case we’re using a trust roof structure so even though we’re showing the dormers the dormers are decorative dormers on the building and it’s a trust roof meaning that this structure the way it’s designed and built an engineer would not be able to accommodate a second floor so that issue couldn’t happen with actually going to the Building Department to get a permit for a retro fit to the building and then that person if they tried to do that would back here and then CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m not suggesting that that’s what would happen only to just say that the law doesn’t these variances when enacted run with the land and so they really are not supposed to be personalized to individuals in preference that the code looks blindly at ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting individual preferences and balances the reasonable rights of property owners with welfare of the community and WILLIAM KELLY : It’s a well-kept property and like you said you can’t personalize it and its current conditions under the current owner and one of the reasons you saw how the cottages are in there in the property and the adjoining properties and you know one of the reasons the owner didn’t want to attach it to the existing house is then the house becomes twice as big as what it is right now from the aesthetic standpoint in his opinion mine as well it would look better using smaller structures two structures of smaller similar sizes rather than connecting it and making it one big structure. MEMBER HORNING : Sir could you gather information about the character of the neighborhood. Are there other parcels in the adjacent neighborhood that have garages in a non-conforming area for one and you know the size of these things we can research whether we’ve given variances down there for size but it is a rather large structure and as we’re pointing out may very well resemble a house which is why the code doesn’t want two single family dwellings on one parcel so that’s why I think the 750 limit is there actually because a dwelling has to be larger than 750. WILLIAM KELLY : That’s correct. MEMBER HORNING : And the idea of attaching it we look at that favorably because then you don’t need a variance and our mission is to reduce the need for a variance if possible. We are asking you to research the neighborhood see if you can come up with any other parcels in the adjacent neighborhood that have detached garages in the front yard or non-conforming area could be side yard I guess too cause the code is pretty strict on that and what size they are whether they’re two or three times the size of code required or not. That will have a bearing on it if you can show us that there are places like that within this neighborhood then we’ll consider that. WILLIAM KELLY : The only ammunition I have as a detached accessory structure to go multiple buildings is just not and I understand what you’re saying. MEMBER HORNING : What kind of utilities go in there sir? WILLIAM KELLY : Pardon me. MEMBER HORNING : What kind of utilities are contemplating to put inside the structure? WILLIAM KELLY : It’s climate controlled. It’s heated and air-conditioned. We don’t really well we would have an outside hose that would be a frost free hydrant and the only thing it would be ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting used for would be to wash the cars but there’s no bathroom on the interior there’s no sanitary system. There’s no application to the Board of Health. With these collectible cars the environment in there has to be climate controlled especially when given the high end owner cars. One of the problems you have with car collections is humidity more so than the cold of winter is the heat and humidity of summer. Collects on all the electrical contacts and mildews and stuff like that. It’s a climate controlled building, heated air-conditioned. Air-conditioning is for dehumidification purposes and again it’s just you know rather than build several smaller building which like you say we can do that of course our other option is attach it to the residence and you know that has tax implication if you do that as well not that that is anything to hang your hat on but and you know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the standards we look at of course is can the benefit be achieved without variance relief. I think what we’ve already answered is yes it can. WILLIAM KELLY : I understand that it can but then CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might not be your ideal answer clearly it isn’t. WILLIAM KELLY : Right cause then again on the other hand the whole purpose of the Zoning Board is when you know you have issues of non-compliance is to find a way to get relief from them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If justified. MEMBER DANTES : Speaking of which looks like the proposed deck that is further back from the front yard than the existing house? WILLIAM KELLY : Yea the proposed deck is on the pond side of the existing house and the reason for the variance on the deck according to the disapproval was the house itself is in the front yard so since the house is in the front yard the new construction of a deck would be in the front yard I’m sorry the house itself would need relief from a front yard setback cause pre- existing non-conforming you can’t increase a non-conformity so the deck is being on that section of the house actually because the section of the house is in the front yard setback the deck is in the front yard setback so that’s the variance for the deck. MEMBER DANTES : It looks like any size or any decent size deck that you would want to build on this house you would need a variance for. WILLIAM KELLY : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it’s a front yard setback 50 feet? ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting WILLIAM KELLY : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think so. MEMBER HORNING : That’s what the notice says. MEMBER DANTES : Is there any decent size deck with a pond view in the development? WILLIAM KELLY : Yea you can see that the front yard line pretty much intersects the center of what we’re proposing the deck side of the building. MEMBER HORNING : Unless you wrapped it around the back of the house. WILLIAM KELLY : And then if you go where that line would intersect that intersects basically right in the middle of the living room and then to the looking at the front of the house where the deck’s at to the right of that deck is a bedroom with windows. And actually the deck on that encroaches on the front yard setback that’s at a higher elevation and if we bring it all the way across it brings it down to ground elevation so then it would be just one step down from the deck to the ground. So there wouldn’t be any need for stairs heading up from the pond side if we did it that way. Come out of the house walk across the deck and step down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’d like to ask a question out of curiosity. The proposed site where this accessory structure is, on a rise on a hill and it’s covered with quite a few hardwood trees that would have to be cut. WILLIAM KELLY : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whereas between that area and the house kind of where the little other existing garage is, is flat and has very few trees why would you propose one that requires the elimination of makes it even more dramatic by putting it higher on a hill. WILLIAM KELLY : Well actually higher on the hill but actually when you level the knoll of that hill is basically where it’s set so that would bring it down. If you what you walked the property and the cones that were set farther back into the woods that would be basically where we would set say floor elevation at so that would knock down the knoll of the hill so it would bring it down roughly 4 feet lower than what the knoll (inaudible) and he just you know he just wanted that separation from the residence with the garage and he felt that that was the best place to put it. We selected that location because what I did is I when we plotted it out on the map we went you know 20 feet off the side yard 50 feet off the front yard and actually as an accessory building the 50 feet off the front yard that’s allowable for an accessory building but it’s actually in the side yard of the house you know so we really don’t have any place to put this thing and then if we were to connect it to the house then we’re going to be back here for a variance for ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting probably for setback variances for the garage the way it would be attached to the house. I’m not sure how we would attach it to the house just yet. I mean it’s just I understand the path of least resistance for us is this I mean moving the building closer to the house or something like that to appease the Board I think that would be something we would be willing to do. He just doesn’t the biggest reason he doesn’t want to connect it to the house is just to create an enormous CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean like all the other houses around here. WILLIAM KELLY : Well you say about the houses in the neighborhood when you go down Nassau Point Rd. and you look at these houses there’s these large say 5, 6, 7000 square foot house with an enclosed breezeway to a large 2,3, 4000 square foot garage and that’s kind of what you would be creating. In his mind’s eye that’s not what he wants to create and if you’re on I guess the east side of Nassau Point Rd. the new constructions that have been going on down through there that’s basically what they have and they have a second floor living space in them as well which is all allowed because they are connected to the house and that’s not what we’re looking for. Just trying to keep the cottage style. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s just enormously big, enormously big. WILLIAM KELLY : When you build buildings that are 20,000 square feet 2,000 square feet is not enormous. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No but you’re talking about a structure that is only 750 square foot permitted by code and you know we’re looking at the substantiality of a variance request from all these different points of view. I guess I don’t have any further comments or questions. I think I understand what your intent is. I think you understand WILLIAM KELLY : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : the issues the Board’s has to grapple with, are Eric do you have any further questions? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close this hearing. WILLIAM KELLY : Can I say just one more thing. Just in closing that my you know evidently my options here are build multiple buildings that are in compliance with the code or the Board allows us or grants us the relief we’re requesting of what we can do build the building that we proposed or the other option would be to connect it to the house which is something that the owner doesn’t want to do so that’s where we’re at. And then the other thing that we really didn’t discuss in any detail was the deck the application for the deck that’s part of this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that’s pre-existing non-conforming as you point out and a deck is very ordinary and customary especially with views to water and it’s not an egregious proposal and personally and we haven’t voted and we don’t vote here. I don’t really have a problem with the deck. I think the reason we haven’t had much conversation about it is because I don’t I don’t believe the Board sees that as a very substantial issue. It’s set back from the road a little bit more than the actual house so that goes well in its favor. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I’d like to ask a question about the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh sure. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Did the applicant possibly look at creating a patio instead of a deck. A patio would not need a variance. WILLIAM KELLY : That’s true but it would be the idea is to be able to walk right out of the living room right onto the deck platform. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how many feet it’s just a small elevation off the ground anyway isn’t it? WILLIAM KELLY : On one end as far as the deck goes? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. WILLIAM KELLY : Well on one end of the house is 3 feet out of the ground and on the other end of the house it’s pretty much one step down to ground level. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So you would say the topography limits the construction of a patio? ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting WILLIAM KELLY : Well the patio would end up in order to make the patio level it would be raised three feet on one side to make it level. Zero on one end and 3 feet on the other end. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I understand. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the motion was to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Do I have 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) HEARING # 6850 – ADF VENTURES, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Horning has to leave because he has to get back to Fisher’s Island on the ferry and the schedule is such he wouldn’t make the last ferry if he didn’t leave now so he’s it’s not that he’s disinterested in the application and he’ll read the transcript. The next application before the Board is for ADF Ventures, LLC # 6850. This is a request for Variances from Article XV, Sections 280-64B&C and 280-63 and the Building Inspector’s June 9, 2014, renewed February 23, 2015, amended February 26, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct a commercial building for an electrical contractor’s yard, at; 1) less than the code required average front yard setback of 16 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 70 feet, 3) proposed structure with more than the code permitted or allowed maximum of 60 linear feet of frontage on one street, located at: 620 Corwin Street in Greenport. Is there someone here for that application? ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting WILLIAM KELLY : Bill Kelly authorized agent for the owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we’re looking at a this is an L.I. Zone property a proposed 2772 square foot Morton building. WILLIAM KELLY : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thirty six by seventy seven. Front yard setback average at 10.2 feet the code requires 16 average that’s an average of the setbacks in the neighborhood that’s not what the code requires as a setback but we’re averaging the buildings along the street code permits a 77 linear foot of frontage on Corwin where the code permits only 60 linear feet. A rear yard setback of 5.5 feet the code requiring 70 feet backs up to the Long Island Railroad tracks and it does require Planning Board site plan approval of course. Lot coverage is 29.05% so you’re squeaking under on lot coverage. This is a one story warehouse. What exactly the application says this is the size you need for a reasonable use. A) What is the use and why is that what’s reasonable? WILLIAM KELLY : The owner is here Fred Fragola and I will probably have him discuss that. The use would be an electrical contractor’s office and warehouse. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so maybe you could take the that’s fine either one will work. What are you going to be warehousing in this building? FRED FRAGOLA : My name is Fred Fragola. I’m the owner of (inaudible) electrical contracting and as an electrical contractor we basically store electrical components, our equipment whether it would be power tools, trenching equipment, lifts etc. etc. vans inside the building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the public would not be coming and going particularly from there or just employees or what? FRED FRAGOLA : Let me explain to you how we operate as electricians. We don’t perform any type of electrical services in the building. It’s basically a warehouse where we stage our material sign the work tickets accordingly whatever we have there and then dispatch the men from that point so on the average our exposure in the morning half hour and then we’re gone. At the end of the day it’s like anybody else you’re out in two minutes cause nobody wants to stay late so as far it’s a 5 day a week exposure sometimes 6 but generally speaking it’s 5 days a week coming in at 7:30 in the morning out of there by 8 o’clock I hope back at 4 or 4:30 and that’s the extent of the exposure to the outside of the vehicles. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now you have you applied to the Planning Board for a site plan approval. We did get some preliminary comments from them. Let’s talk about them together. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting The history of the lot size and it’s configuration they had some questions about that can you talk to us a little bit about the how the lot got to be the size. I think there was a discrepancy it was originally a different size and now see what my notes say here. WILLIAM KELLY : The discrepancy is on whether I think that section on 7 th Street has been abandoned and according to the meets and bounds evidently that the surveyor provided us with that’s how the property size was determined and that wash how it was represented to Fred. FRED FRAGOLA : Marty Hand who is my surveyor just left a message with him he’ll do whatever he has to do and I’ll try to get that paperwork to the Board as soon as possible how he came up with that but at this point I can’t answer that that abandonment how he came up with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea cause I’ll just read into the record the one paragraph you know so we’re all hearing the same thing. The town’s laser fiche record show the lot was created on a map showing properties of the Greenport milling company at Greenport New York dated October 19 th 1918 prepared by Halsey and VanTuyl. Records further show that a deed liber 6265 page 278 was filed transferring the lot in 1967. The deed does not match the survey prepared by Hands on Surveying with no date submitted with the application. The area described as part of 7 th Street shown on the survey is not included on the 1967 meets and bounds deed description. So for both the Planning Board and for our Board we’re going to need to just straighten that out find out exactly what the details are. The Planning Board also has some comments with regard well they actually went on with the business but you’ve got a copy of that right? They’re talking about an abandonment of the portion of 7 th Street shown on the survey and they asked us to inquire so we’ve done that and you’ll get that straightened out. Now, the Planning Board is also suggesting some sort of design changes to minimize potential impacts to the residential uses surrounding the parcel thru development of the lot and we’ll explain what that is. One has to do with buffer and the other has to do with an increased rear yard setback. They’re suggesting we require the establishment of a 30 foot wide vegetated transitional buffer along the easterly property boundary. The transitional buffer would result in compliance with 280-94 of the Town Code and would lessen potential impacts to the residential use to the east. The front yard setback could remain as proposed which is 10.2 feet with a reduction of building size or reorientation. They’re basically saying the building is possibly too large for the actual size of the property so when we have concurrent jurisdiction between Zoning and Planning what we usually do in order for the benefit of the property owner as well as both Boards is we’ll take testimony from you we’ll get as many facts into our record as we can then we would typically adjourn to give you some time to work with Planning because if we grant certain setback relief and then the Planning Board comes up with an agreed different site plan approach you’ve been here for nothing. Tie up their hands in being creative with the site ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting design so again what you’re proposing to us might be somewhat changed based upon what happens in Planning but they’re looking at creating a buffer and then the other thing is increasing the rear yard setback from 5.5 to 12 feet to be more aligned with passed variances granted on the East End Supply Inc. that’s the other you know industrial buildings along Corwin they give you a tax map number located to the west of the subject lot. Then finally, a concern about the storage of vehicles and the parking of commercial vehicles within the Corwin St. right of way, how would you address that with parking vehicles? FRED FRAGOLA : There is no parking out front. We’d have vehicles inside the building. So the only vehicles you’d see the personal employees whether it’s 2 or 3 people who would be working for me parked out in the parking lot so the designated to the east side of the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you would have on-site parking for employees? FRED FRAGOLA : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you did say something in here which is why I asked you originally in the application you said well you need a 70 foot long building so that it is a usable length. Why would 60 feet not be a usable length? FRED FRAGOLA : Well just to allow my bucket truck has if I was to take an educated guess I believe that vehicle somewhere between 25 and 26 feet long. The trench with the trailers is another 20 feet so when I warehouse everything in the building it becomes a little tight to put everything in there and keep everything outside is an event. I’m not looking to have any of my power equipment outside. From years of experience 1) the maintenance 2) the vandalism 3) it looks like a little unsightly so generally what I’m trying to do is set everything up where I can have it inside the building and then I have the same ability to store material, stage and work out of the building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure that you have copies of a letter that we got from neighbors. FRED FRAGOLA : I have the e-mail I just read it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We want to make sure everybody has the same information so that you are given an opportunity to address any of those concerns. I’m just scanning it again to see if there’s anything I need to well in a nut shell people are somewhat concerned about additional even though it’s an L.I. Zone which gives it certain apparent rights. The fact that it is pretty well surrounded by residential, there’s the tracks on one side but there are lots of homes in that area. It’s kind of a dead end situation but there’s still plenty of residential activity going ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting on there and I think most of the neighbors are concerned with traffic. How many employees do you have and how many vehicles? FRED FRAGOLA : We have employees maximum 4 employees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Four employees. And how many trucks? FRED FRAGOLA : Not counting the bucket truck maximum of 3 trucks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Three trucks. And your hours of operation generally? FRED FRAGOLA : 7:30 to 4:30 or excuse me let’s just do 7 to 5 cause that time is based on time of the year. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 7 o’clock to 5 o’clock okay. Is there any on site security lighting at night being proposed although that is a Planning Board issue but FRED FRAGOLA : Yea you know as an electrical contractor we’re all aware of dark sky compliance so obviously that would be put in place. The amount of light on that building I’m not looking to make this an attractive point that it stands out and I’m very very strong about that. It would be very low key lighting or a soffit lighting that would have a nice appeal to wash the building provided it’s in compliance with dark skies. But there’s nothing projecting offending the neighbor or any of the neighbors that’s not my intent to have flood lights on the building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So no security flood lights per say just down lighting. FRED FRAGOLA : Just general light and what’s required by the Town of Southold is what I’m trying to place on the facility. WILLIAM KELLY : The Town of Southold requires that (inaudible) that hits the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric other questions you might have. MEMBER DANTES : Is this (inaudible) where you plan on relocating your company to? FRED FRAGOLA : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No, let’s see what happens in Planning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I feel the same way. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know there must be someone in the audience who wants to address the application cause we don’t have any more hearings so would you like to come forward. FRED FRAGOLA : Excuse me I want to add one other comment here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. FRED FRAGOLA : The building that we’re proposing to put up is a very clean looking building cultured stone I’m sure you’ve seen that but there’s a question of the distance off the property of the Long Island Railroad now I have I believe it’s 5.5. You’re looking for me to bring it forward and I’m not looking to go forward for the simple fact has anybody walked down the railroad tracks and see what it looks like there? My intention was to put up an L shaped fence cause I can’t block off the neighbor’s property, vegetate heavily whatever shrubs along the back and just keep it clean where it’s non-accessible for me no windows no doors. Everything on this building is raised the building design is raised up high with the windows for light but not to have anything where it’s down low where you can look in or visa versa you can look out. It’s strictly to be a warehouse in a sense it’s very very clean very simple barn look or push it back as far as you can go to the Long Island Railroad to try to clean that up. That’s it. WILLIAM KELLY : I just wanted to comment. As far as you know character of the neighborhood on that particular side of the street with Lewis Marine there there’s one section of Lewis Marine that touches on 8 feet as far as proximity to the front yard and then you look at Lewis Marine and you have the whole complex of Lewis Marine that’s the adjoining property to the left so what we’re asking for isn’t out of character for the neighborhood. It’s not a residence but it’s not out of character and it’s the proper zone for what we want to do. FRED FRAGOLA : One other comment. That property has been vacant. People have just been dumping there. There’s no aesthetically (inaudible) there. There are trees that everybody wants to try to maintain that we would end up revegetating whatever type of buffers to dress it up but as I’m saying it’s literally being treated as a dump. It’s just whatever debris people dumping garbage and other things. It’s been happening for years. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just state and spell your name for the record please. JENNIFER KENNEDY : Jennifer Kennedy. JAMES KENNEDY : James Kennedy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what would you like us to know? JAMES KENNEDY : So we’re the home owners directly opposite where this proposed building. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting JENNIFER KENNEDY : Our address our mailing address is (inaudible) JAMES KENNEDY : So I know in the previous hearing you said that the Zoning Board visited the property that you were just talking about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have visited it. JAMES KENNEDY : So you visited this? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. JAMES KENNEDY : So you’re aware I guess we were (inaudible) those doors and then we were sitting (inaudible) want to present some facts and this is just talking to the people in the neighborhood. So Lewis Marine to the west there’s a certain amount of commercial traffic that the community this neighborhood is forced to deal with so there’s traffic that runs up and down 7 th. Apparently there’s some restrictions for commercial traffic on 7 th none of that is obeyed. Everybody uses 7 th when they’re supposed to use 9 th so that’s one of the things I’ve heard from most of the people in the neighborhood. Just the amount of traffic there is just out of balance for (inaudible). You know so the change in use here really not really desired by the neighborhood. If there was another home that was being built there that’s something that people could accept but not commercial property being built there you know I really don’t what L.I. Zone means. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Light industrial. JAMES KENNEDY : I’m not sure when that was applied to that piece of property probably 1918 when you said you know this goes back to but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well no Zoning wasn’t even in effect until the 50’s. JAMES KENNEDY : Right so but it’s just it’s out of character for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you just lift that up . We have to get a good rendition of your comments into the public record so we’re tape recording. JAMES KENNEDY : Generally it’s just out of character for the way the neighborhood is sort of developed you know since Lewis Marine it’s all just been residential. Our neighbor you know has a beautiful house. Done great renovations has small children we do too. JENNIFER KENNEDY : And this is also a dead end road so where Lewis Marine has access from both you know 7 th, 8 th and 9 th correct? ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting JAMES KENNEDY : Yea they got choices to you know so everything for this business just is going to be running right in front of our house. Some other points here I’ve written down JENNIFER KENNEDY : I mean one is you know as a mother I have two young children our neighbors have two young children that play on you know that street. It is a dead end. There’s another young child in the house that backs up to the dead end and they do have a gate to access. He comes out into the neighborhood and just I know that when we have even a guest over the parking is so tight there that I’m concerned of I know this gentleman said he has several trucks a bucket truck. That bucket truck will come in and out of the building I’m assuming? FRED FRAGOLA : The bucket truck if it’s used ten times a year, this truck is a 2001. I purchased it from Dodge. If I have 8000 miles on it that’s a lot. Bucket trucks don’t normally go out on a daily basis and if I would say it was ten times that would be a lot. So to answer that not that often. However I’m not looking to give up the bucket truck. JENNIFER KENNEDY : And the vans how often do they go out? FRED FRAGOLA : The vans go out two vans everyday every morning and come back. Repeating we do not congregate there. I as the owner will not allow people to stay in the shop. It’s a negative cash flow. So our jobs are to basically design the client calls in asks us to work we get out as quick as possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When someone goes out in the morning to the field do they generally stay out in the field until the afternoon? FRED FRAGOLA : I hope so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words if there’s enough work then they stay out. FRAD FRAGOLA : I’ve been doing this 42 years and it’s not a question of and it’s a good question is there enough work we work hypothetically 8 hours a day and what I was trying to say is when the vehicles come in at the end of the day they’re in, they’re as quick as they can get in and out cause they’re not on the clock. They want to go home. In the morning we don’t congregate. It’s not a situation where we’re hanging out outside. Come into the shop load up our material and we leave. The other point is I never heard anything about the 7 th, 8 th and 9 th St. but all respect the neighborhood if you’re telling me 9 th Street is a commercial direction (inaudible) I would never bargain that I totally understand that. So we would comply to that and children I have children to I can understand everybody’s points. You know caution whatever has to be done even if I had to turn around and agree to some type of speed bump there so everybody knows I’m committed to the neighborhood not be offensive or put anybody’s children in jeopardy. ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting JENNIFER KENNEDY : Yea I wasn’t concerned about utilizing 9 th Street. The issue is when you come off CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need to address the Board. JENNIFER KENNEDY : I’m sorry. There’s only one way to go and because we’re a dead end road and it is so tight right there that would be a big concern and just the proximity to the house and the aesthetics I mean we have seen the buildings they are nice buildings but we’re more concerned about the safety in the neighborhood, the traffic and you know we bought there because it was a residential neighborhood. JAMES KENNEDY : So one of the other things which we’d like to you know communicate here is you know the outreach into the community has got to be a little bit deeper you know I think we’re one of 5 people that have been contacted to comment on this but yet when I talk to people all the way up to you know from Corwin all the way up to 25 you know they all had something to say about it and they were all surprised to find out that this building is you know proposed that it’s going to be built there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me explain how what the law requires we require applicants to notify adjacent neighbors directly that’s the green cards you know you get return receipt you know the ones immediately impacted. They also are required to post that yellow notice of public hearing card in front of the property so that anybody driving by in the area would have access. It’s also legally noticed in the Suffolk Times that you know why that applicant the address why they’re coming before the Zoning Board what the date is what the time is and so on so that’s what the law obligates us to do to try to inform the public. This is sometimes the case you know people are in a much broader area and if they didn’t read the paper or they didn’t drive by to see the yellow sign they may not know about it but let me assure you this is not the only time that comments will be forth coming. They have to go before the Planning Board and a lot of the issues about curb cuts and ingress and egress and traffic circulation and buffers that would screen things from view and so those are things that are in the jurisdiction of the Planning Board which is why commercial buildings have to go for site plan approval whereas houses don’t if they’re non-conforming just come to us. So we will take testimony today as I said and take into consideration those issues and you’ll have a chance to revisit those issues with the Planning Board to see what kind of improved proposal that begins to mitigate some of the concerns or potential adverse impacts on the neighborhood and that’s how the process works and it is very participatory so if you have neighbors who now know about it who have something to say they can either do it in writing and submit it to the Zoning Board and to the Planning Board can go to the work session of the Planning Board and eventual public hearing there. We will be adjourning this we’re not going to take any action on it and they ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting understand why I mean this is common for all commercial activity and then they’ll come back to us when you’ve gotten further along with Planning. So, this is just the beginning. JENNIFER KENNEDY : The yellow variance notice when is that supposed to be posted? How far in advance from CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it two weeks? Seven days. JENNIFER KENNEDY : Seven days. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We love to get them out as fast as possible only because this Board goes and visits every single property individually that comes before us before a public hearing and if those yellow cards aren’t up believe me we have enough trouble trying sometimes there’s no addresses I mean it’s very hard not to have the yellow signs up. JAMES KENNEDY : Those posted by the Zoning Board not by the applicant? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No the applicant is given the stuff from the office and then it’s up to them to go and post it or their agent their representative just is another way to inform the public and helping us find the site. Did you have any comments that you’d like us to hear at this time? JAMES KENNEDY : No I think that’s it if I can just make a formal request for further outreach I know you told me that it’s only the adjacent properties but I’d like to be in the record that there’s additional outreach in the neighborhood for them to weigh in on this CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea well we can’t do that ourselves but you can. You know I mean its public it’s a public meeting it’s open to the public and as anyone would want including our property owner you don’t want to start out with bad being a bad neighbor. Nobody wants to do that. JAMES KENNEDY : Yea we appreciate what’s you know one question I have which I don’t know if it’s appropriate to ask but cause I know the property was for sale did you buy the property? FRED FRAGOLA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so I think we’ve gotten maybe as far as we can unless you have some more comments you’d like to enter into the record today. WILLIAM KELLY : I just wanted to make a couple you know to clarify a few things based on comments that were made. So I just did a measurement from the front not from the front of the building there’s a 4 foot overhang on the front of the building but from the front of the 4 foot overhang to the property that I would call to the north side of Corwin St. the property line ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting is 65 feet and then the other thing just for clarity is the access as far as the large trucks accessing this building they would be accessing it from the west end of the building off of Corwin. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you had a chance to see their survey or their site plan? JAMES KENNEDY : Actually that’s one other thing that I wanted to ask cause we have drawing 205 so it looks like there’s more in the package I was just wondering you know there might be elevation views that I could see and you know just more information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s available two ways. You can either ask them and they’re here and they’ll show you but not during this hearing or you can come into our office and foil it, Freedom of information act. These are public documents. If you come in you can request to take a look at them and anything else that’s in the file and Vicki or one of the other staff members will assist you and anyone can do that so that information is available in both of those ways. Is there anything else? Okay so hearing no further comments or questions I’m going to make a motion to why don’t we adjourn this to June also and see how far they can get. I’m going to give you 60 days to see what you can come up with with the Planning Board. I don’t know maybe you wanna come in in May. WILLIAM KELLY : Health Department application has been filed and all we need is our final Health Department approval and a SEQR which will come from the Planning Board. We have a work session on Monday. I don’t know that they have the work sessions so much open to the public. They really like those to be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They’re open to the public but not it’s not a hearing but you can listen. WILLIAM KELLY : Yeah they won’t take public comment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it’s not for give and take with the public it’s give and take between the Planning Board and the applicant and the Planning Department. WILLIAM KELLY : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To work out various details. WILLIAM KELLY : So we’re on we’ve already filed out an application with them and we’re on the agenda for their work session on Monday I guess that’s the 6 th of April at 4 o’clock. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now we can put you on we can adjourn this to May and if you know a pending comments from Planning Department and if in fact you’re just not far enough along ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting just write to us give us a call and just say send an email saying requesting to be adjourned to June. I mean if you weren’t ready in May I would have to open the hearing by you know putting it on the agenda and then adjourn it to the next month. FRED FRAGOLA : As I understand it what we’re looking for right now you just need me to clarify the road abandonment is that correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I mean it’s really spelled out in detail in the Planning Board’s comments. They wanna know how come the survey doesn’t match what the deed you know what happened to that 7 th St. piece. FRED FRAGOLA : But that’s what I understand what you’re looking for right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well and then there are other considerations but they’re primarily I think is best suited there were buffers possible reorientation of the building you know you need to explain to them why you need 70 rather than 60 or 62 feet or something like that so you know they spell out some of the concerns that they haven’t had a chance to deal with yet but that having seen your proposal that’s as far as they can take us at this point. So we’ve raised those issues here and I think you need to follow them up more in detail with them. FRED FRAGOLA : Okay. MEMBER DANTES : The Planning Board usually makes their decisions first and we make ours based on theirs right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They will usually do a preliminary approval in other words it’s not a final site plan approval they get to an agreed site plan that’s recommended by the Planning Department to the Planning Board and at that point we’re pretty well fixed and then because I don’t want we don’t want to grant setback relief and then tie up their hands and yours so the variances as I said might change depending on how you’ve worked things out with them so they’ll let us know, you’ll let us know and we’ll carry on doing our job in collaboration rather than in antipathy or you know working in opposite directions so you wanna try for May or do you just want to adjourn to June and by then I’m sure you’ll have some further information. We can take you in May if it’s WILLIAM KELLY : I wanna try for May cause what’ll happen you see what happens with the Planning Board is we’ll have our work session on Monday and then based on the outcome of that work session then they’ll issue us a letter and comments from the work session and then essentially we have one week to make revisions and resubmit to them based on the conversation that takes place at the work session so that would put us in the middle of April where we could theoretically have a plan that’s pretty much in compliance ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Tentative plan. WILLIAM KELLY : Yea a tentative plan for them and then there would be a work session again in the middle of April and again after every work session we have one week to resubmit and then the last week or the first or maybe the first Monday of the month so I’m not sure how that falls with your meeting because you meet the first Thursday CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Usually the first Thursday and the third Thursday. WILLIAM KELLY : Okay so the first Monday of the month we would have that potentially could be a public hearing for our application would be the first so if that were the case that would mean that we have everything in order and they’re having a public hearing because they’re satisfied with the plans that we’ve provided so yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I mean our intent is to move this as swiftly for your benefit as we can but without being precipitous you know we don’t want to jump the gun but if you can get things in place then fine. And meanwhile you can let your neighbors know what’s going on inform them about the upcoming work session with the Planning Board so you can listen and you know see where it goes. WILLIAM KELLY : And just so the neighbors know that the same public notice goes out with for the Planning Board. They would be notified CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Planning Board has to put it in the newspaper has to do all WILLIAM KELLY : The sign would be posted again for the public hearing for the Planning Board meeting and that’s where they can make public comment. MEMBER DANTES : For the Planning Board they won’t take public comment at the work session will they take written comments from neighbors? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Usually they do that at a public hearing isn’t that right Stephen? This is our attorney. Yea it’s typically taken in public commentary happens on a day like today when there’s actually a public hearing where we welcome participation written, verbal whatever. WILLIAM KELLY : They usually want to wait until the final plan set’s done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah cause otherwise they change it again. WILLIAM KELLY : Yea all of a sudden everybody is looking at something that’s not the way it was so they’d rather have the final plan set which is posted at the public hearing for the Planning Board. They’ll post a survey on the wall when you walk in you’ll be able to look at you know any revisions or anything that were done and go on public record. Now the Planning Board when ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting we send out notification for the Planning Board I don’t think that they require us to send the survey and building plans just the notification. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just the notification but when you come into the public hearing with the Planning Board the documents are posted for the public to look at. We’re going to try for May and you know what prior to that date if you see that it’s not going as swiftly as you thought just give Vicki a call and you know if it’s before WILLIAM KELLY : Vicki does a good job keeping track of me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s a lead time where we have to notify the public and if the public is notified prior to say oh we’re not ready we have to open it just in case somebody shows up as a courtesy you know to the public. They came here thinking there was going to be a hearing and you requested an adjournment so we open it usually there isn’t anybody but if there is somebody here we have to listen to it and then we’d adjourn it to your request so that’s how that works. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Bill we’ve known you for a long time and I you know I’ve watched your operation you’re very very quick in what you do and very well established. Can you assure these very nice people that are here that during the construction of any type of size building that you’ll have your men walking around and clean up every day after they’re ready to go home and so on and so forth. WILLIAM KELLY : Yea that’s a constant job site issue I think that anybody that’s in construction but it’s something we really emphasize and what we’ve been doing on our job sites like a job site like this where we’re located you know we don’t you see rent a fences around we don’t normally do that but what we do is put up the orange caution fence so that the property would have caution fence around it and all that does is you shouldn’t come in here and then we also post by OSHA rule we have to post what I call the crazy sign but it’s a (inaudible) but it’s a construction zone and then anybody that’s in that area has to be wearing a hard hat protective gear. The crew at the end of every day we try as best we can we stack lumber, pick up trash and you know we always have a dumpster on the site we always have a porta-jon on site so we put the porta-jon as remotely as possible from any adjoining properties. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You also afford them of a telephone number for someone to call if they see anybody over there you know during construction? WILLIAM KELLY : We can do that. We can post a job site sign during the process you know as far as neighbors go we would be more than happy to provide them with my cell phone number so that at any time of day that they can get a hold of somebody rather than have to call the office and get I have staff in the office at all times. Fred had staff at his office at all times during ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting normal business hours that if something were to happen then at 7 or 8 o’clock at night they needed to get a hold of somebody that we would provide them with a number. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I’m going to make JAMES KENNEDY : It’s just a general thought this is kind of the next step for Fred and his business it’s probably a great thing we all look to make things better and grow but what’s the next step after that. If you grow your business by moving it to a good spot and things are booming you know and it’s just you know it’s changing the character of the neighborhood and really that’s the general message I wanted to say just further changes the character of the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We hear you. Alright I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to May 7 th at 9:30 a.m. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? April 2, 2015 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature • r� �-�- C;,C� Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE: April 15, 2015