Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/03/2015 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 September 3, 2015 9:31 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member (Absent) ERIC DANTES – Member GERARD GOEHRINGER – Member GEORGE HORNING – Member (Left at 1 P.M.) KENNETH SCHNEIDER – Member VICKI TOTH – Board Assistant STEPHEN KIELY – Assistant Town Attorney ? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Barbara M. Gorham Trust # 6880 3 – 10 Christopher and Elisabetta Coschignano # 6884 10 - 13 Steven and Andrea Kolyer # 6860 13 - 15 Bertha Lynch, (Estate of) # 6883 15 - 21 Thomas Giese and Paulette Garafalo # 6879 21 - 33 430 WSD, LLC # 6877 33 - 42 Walter and Barbara Fitzgerald # 6878 43 - 45 Anthony and Lisa Sannino # 6882 45 - 46 Susan Cacchioli # 6881 46 - 52 ? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6880 – BARBARA M. GORHAM TRUST BOARD ASSISTANT : First hearing Barbara M. Gorham Trust #6880 request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s July 13, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for “as built” additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and an “as built” accessory shed, at 1) “as built” additions and alterations at less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) “as built” shed located in other than the code required rear yard located at 162 Lower Shingle Road (Fox Avenue, go through lot) Fishers Island NY. SAM FITZGERALD : Good morning my name is Sam Fitzgerald. I’m the agent on behalf of the applicant. My client’s mother Barbara Gorham purchased this property 162 Lower Shingle Road in 1974. Mrs. Gorham actually passed away this year sadly at the age of 95 and her daughter my client is now in the process of settling her estate and with (inaudible) house. She has a buyer and they’re under contract and the buyer’s lawyer has some questions about the condition of the house. It’s a really old house. It’s one of the oldest on Fishers Island and so I was hired to investigate further the condition of the house and to answer questions of the attorney and to generally help settling problems that come up with the sale regarding the house and property. Within that with that work I’ve become very familiar with the house and if I could very briefly say that the house was built in the 1890’s. It was a cottage part of the Mansion House hotel complex. The hotel is no longer with us but the cottages are and the summer cottages were all built in a shingle style all in one group oh yea we have a (away from mic) so the summer cottages were all built in one group on a hill in a shingle style so it’s now known as Shingle Hill. The lower the houses at the bottom of Shingle Hill all were built the kitchens originally and they were able to accommodate staff and the upper houses actually were not so those guys had to walk down to the hotel and take their meals. I wanted to point out but I mention thing about of a service in the house because it is important you see in the aerial view here is that all the houses along Lower Shingle Hill here down here are all tucked very very close up to the road and that was because there was a service drive right behind the house which is now called Lower Shingle Rd. but back in the day it was just a service drive. It was just there to provide access to the house for the service people. It was never meant to be the sort of formal public access to the house. So what they did is they pushed all these houses up very close to the service road and left as much land in the front of the house as possible for the family to enjoy so I know today nowadays zoning wise these lots would be considered to have two front yards but I just want to sort of make that distinction that actually with the house themselves there is a distinct back part of the house and a front yard on the front part of the house. This past summer the building inspector was by to do a C.O. inspection and he noted ? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting there were several additions to the house that were not permitted and two of those additions require zoning variances so one is the detached garden shed see on the side of the house and the other is this roofed area here which sort of fills in the corner of the existing house. My client has said that her mother put up the shed and the roofed area very soon after she bought the house in 1974 and she did it because with the shed she needed a place to put her lawn mower and her garden tools and you know there’s no real useable basement in the house. There’s no garage, there’s no other shed so she bought a prefab shed and put it up and with the roofed area same kind of thing all born out of function you know that’s where the main back door of the house is that’s where the kids come in from the beach and from boating and sports and they’re messy and plus when it rains back there it gets wet so she says why not just put a roof over it so I don’t think she had any idea that she was generating any kind of zoning issue. She was just doing this. So but the lot there’s a through lot so there’s two front yards there’s no back yard so with the shed there’s no legal place for it to go because there’s no rear yard even if we were to relocate it there would be no legal place for the shed to go but I think that in this case I think that Mrs. Gorham shows the best place for the shed both for function and for aesthetics. First of all it’s off to the side of the house and it is in as discreet a location as possible from the front from this formal side of the house and it doesn’t block anybody’s views. It doesn’t block her driveway. The east neighbor actually likes the shed being there because it provides some privacy between his property and the Gorham’s similarly with the covered porch. It does not increase the non-conformity of the existing house it’s the same setbacks so there’s minimal impact there. Architecturally the shed is you know it’s quite low and you know it really gets lost in the two and half story houses that are all around it so I don’t think there is any impact any negative impact on the scale of the street and there are plenty of sheds like this in the neighborhood so I don’t think there is any negative impact on the character of the neighborhood as well and with the covered porch here it is right here again it’s just a one story shed style roof that is very typical for a shingle style house and for what’s seen in the neighborhood and again it’s one story so it’s perfectly within scale of the two and half story houses around it and again I see no adverse impact on the neighborhood or the street. MEMBER HORNING : Sam pardon me did you get any setback measurements for the shed? SAM FITZGERALD : Yea sorry so it’s 4.6 feet from the side yard and it’s 25 feet back from the front yard both on (inaudible) and Shingle rd. MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : George do you have any questions? MEMBER HORNING : The only question that I really have is let’s confirm the shed size of 96 square feet roughly. ? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting SAM FITZGERALD : That’s right. MEMBER HORNING : We’ll call it a small shed. SAM FITZGERALD : Small shed right I think it’s the standard prefab size. MEMBER HORNING : And the porch itself 110 square feet? SAM FITZGERALD : Yep. MEMBER HORNING : So we have basically non-conforming additions as built no permit of just over 200 square foot total for both everything combined. SAM FITZGERALD : That’s right. MEMBER HORNING : Thank you. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Gerry questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No not at all. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Question on Lower Shingle Hill Rd that’s a private road? SAM FITZGERALD : I believe it’s a private road. MEMBER HORNING : It is private. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So most thoroughfare wouldn’t be using that road they would use what road if they were going back and forth to that area? SAM FITZGERALD : Fox Avenue is the thoroughfare through there so I think you would only be using Lower Shingle Hill Rd. if you live there or yea these are narrow gravel roads and so it would really it wouldn’t make any sense to actually use it as a thoroughfare you know just be used if you live there. MEMBER HORNING : The roads are used seasonally quite a bit by people coming and going. Service trucks this kind of thing, deliveries of sorts. There’s quite a bit of use. In the winter their privately plowed so they are useable and people do the pole lines the utility pole line goes along that road so the access is kept open but there’s lesser use probably eight months out of the year. There are a lot of people that come and go throughout the year though so peoples driveways are off of that road too they’re not off of Fox Ave. ? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : They’re off of Fox okay. MEMBER HORNING : It’s predominantly people in the neighborhood or vehicles visiting someone in the neighborhood for either business purpose or something you know that access road is for the neighborhood itself. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The neighborhood itself okay. MEMBER HORNING : But nobody just drives through there. I mean you can I have done it myself but you wouldn’t normally just drive through there you know driving down a road. It is a very narrow road. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We see that. Okay I have no further questions. Mr. Lark did you want to say something. MR. LARK : Richard Lark Main Rd. Cutchogue New York for the applicant. You heard Mr. Fitzgerald explain everything and plus you’ve read the application and one of your members Mr. Horning is well familiar with the property so I won’t cover any of that ground and he covered that the 110 square feet is what we’re involved with with the roof over the open porch there area and the 96 square feet for the shed in the side yard because the house itself I don’t think he covered it it was probably built in about 1918 from what the research came from the Ferguson library and what Mr. Fitzgerald was able to determine from the family. That’s when the house was originally built as most of those houses in that area after the end or WWI and of course now it was all built around for the hotel and these particular homes on Fox Ave. and Lower Shingle Rd. were basically year round homes cause they had heat in them and indoor plumbing and more of the amenities and also on the third floor is where the help lived but as Mr. Horning says they were used probably seasonally maybe half a year six months of the year but there were year round places and now they are used on a year round basis those particular ones. So the Board in making its determination for the variance has to in effect as you know weigh the benefit to the applicant beyond the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. The following factors which the Town Law requires the Board to consider the first one I think it’s fairly obvious after listening to Mr. Fitzgerald and if you’re reading the application and if you visit the site there’s absolutely no undesirable change in this one family residential the residential character of this neighborhood nor is there a detriment to any of the nearby properties. These two particular items the covered porch was put in I’m told around 1974, ’75 and the shed was a couple of years later when they put it in after they purchased the place. Specifically the neighborhood as far as all the structure are concerned as has been pointed out have been in existence about 1918 and early 1920’s to the present day is the only difference now really is that they’re individually owned as the hotel went out of business and only small vestiges of it remaining as opposed to all being owned by the hotel properties or Hay ? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting Harbor which eventually took it over so that’s the main difference. The four foot setback on the Lower Shingle Rd. has existed since the house was built in 1918 as Mr. Fitzgerald said they built it right up against the road for a service entrance so that they could use the front lawn ambiance on Fox Ave. which of course is the public road and you can see from some of the photographs that you have in the application that that is a beautiful pastoral setting there and from Fox Ave. to the what would either be the rear or the front of the house because we have two front (inaudible) and keep in mind that the covered porch is not conditioned living space. It’s still open it’s only got a cover on the top of it. Before that there was a wooden deck or porch if you would which as Mr. Fitzgerald said served as the main entrance when they park their cars to the house also served as a service entrance with the oil tank back there and also was accessed then to the little cubby hole cellar where they had the furnace and hot water heater and things of that nature in there so it was a busy area so to protect it from rains and stuff they put it on and I submit that they’ve gone for a building permit probably been (inaudible) by the building inspector Mr. Terry at that time without the necessity of coming to the Board. Now the next item which is two items here is the 96 square foot storage shed which has existed at least since 1978 has caused no problem and in fact the neighbor to the one side really likes it cause it provides privacy and if you were going to have a storage shed cause they had no access to put things like lawn mowers and whatever you put in a storage shed rakes and shovels and stuff like that the this is the today would be the only location. To move it closer to Lower Shingle Rd. would serve no purpose and to put it in the legal front yard 35 feet up on Fox Ave. I’m sure the neighbors wouldn’t appreciate that. It would destroy the ambiance as you drive down Fox Ave. with the trees and everything it’s very pastoral. So as Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out I think it’s the only place if you’re going to have one is leave it in that particular spot. The next criteria is whether the applicant could do something else and retain the benefit of the covered porch and the accessory shed without obtaining a variance. Under today’s zoning ordinance the answer is clearly no. It has to come here plus the building inspector interprets the code that he has no authority to do any waiving in a non-conforming neighborhood like this so it has to come back to the Board and as Mr. Fitzgerald says there’s no place to put the shed other than where it is and the front yard what I call the rear yard where the service entrance but the front yard there has always been four feet and this did not encroach on it putting this shelter roof over the top of it it didn’t as you can see from the pictures it’s open they’ve for privacy they just put a picket fence around it but other than that it’s just as its existed when it was put up back in the 70’s. The next criteria that you have to consider is, is it substantial? Giving me current zoning ordinance requirement I’d have to say yea it is because you’re asking for a 4 foot variance on a 35 foot front you’re asking to put the shed in a rear yard and I don’t have a rear yard so it is. I can’t get around that if I look at it however that’s technically true but applying it to zoning requirements of this property and looking at the property and the neighborhood it’s not substantial. It fits in perfectly. The ? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting extension of the roof was not substantial with relationship to the largeness size of the house and the shed can understand why they needed some place to store some stuff and not just let it littered all over the place which wouldn’t of been permitted anyway so it’s not substantial and in that sense of the word and my point is it’s practically from a practical standpoint I think all the Board can do on the shed is remove it without giving a variance is remove it and to me that would be unfair, punitive and unreasonable considering it’s been there since the 70’s and has not caused any problems and if you’ll see it it is fairly attractive from one of those Home Depot types sheds and it is in keeping with I think with the Boards purpose and mission to grant a variance on that thing on that criteria of non-substantiality. The last criteria is whether it will have any adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood without belaboring it I think Mr. Fitzgerald covered it and it’s clear that this is a (inaudible) non-conforming neighborhood and this will have absolutely zero impact. The last criteria that the legislature stuck in is whether it was self-created and again I have to be candid and say yea it was but if they’d applied to the building inspector in 70 for what they have there now I think it would have been granted. You gotta understand the history of Fishers Island is a little different than the rest of the Town of Southold and large portions of the island Mr. Horning will tell you were considered open development area until about sometime in the mid 70’s when the Planning Board got active and they formalized everything and now it’s completely under the Zoning Ordinance 100% but before Mr. Terry (inaudible) issue permits providing it met with the State Building Codes and stuff like that and the zoning was highly relaxed because they self-controlled it primarily with FIDCO governing being more or less the governing body over there they pretty much controlled it all on their own so I had to laugh because these people Mr. Fitzgerald’s clients had put the thing in or applied at that time it’s clearly that they would of gotten I think permits at that time to do it so I respectfully request to move this along that the Board grant the application as applied for as I believe it does meet the criteria required for an area variance. Parenthetically though in thinking about this submission as you know I do a number of these during the course of the year I just wonder if a provision couldn’t be put in to the zoning ordinance and I say this really where you have non-conforming existing non-conforming neighborhoods like this why you could not give the building inspector more leeway cause he rigidly says no doesn’t conform to today’s ordinance where he can go back and look at what the on these as built problems what went on at that time and whether or not he’d have the flexibility to give a variance or permit rather and rather than have to formally come to the Board of Appeals. I’m not talking about use now use is a different matter that should stay right here but I’m just talking about these side yard, rear yard these area type situations. So I just leave that with you as food for thought and again I respectfully move that you approve the application as applied for. Thank you very much for you time. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : George do you have any questions for Mr. Lark? ? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : All set. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. I just wanted to thank both of you for the wonderful pictures and the drawings I mean it depicts everything that we really want to see and MR. LARK : Because how else do you do it on something like this unless you do take photographs. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The one of the questions that came up MR. LARK : You can talk all day but you don’t visualize it. MEMER GOEHRINGER : One of the questions that came up during the hearing between the three of us was how come we couldn’t take an average setback and I said mainly because and correct me if I’m wrong mainly because it’s a private road. It’s not a public road. We really only do average setbacks on public roads. MR. LARK : That’s true it is a private road. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well the only one that we can compare it to is Reydon Shores okay. Reydon Shores has this garbage collection area in back I think its Oak St. okay and I’ve never seen any average setback back there. They’re mainly the old fashioned garage is on it that are almost on the lines. MR. LARK : New Suffolk is another example. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : New Suffolk is another example but I’ve never seen an average setback in Reydon Shores for any one of those storage buildings and they’re almost right on the line. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question. Did you ask them to take an average setback when you applied? MR. LARK : No Mr. Fish just denied it and said you gotta go to the Board I’m not getting involved. MEMBER DANTES : It might not hurt to ask if there are. MR. LARK : That’s a good point. That is a very valid point you know I would take that into consideration in the future but from what I understand cause he got involved with the building ? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting inspector directly because he was there to try to straighten out any problems with the old house structurally so on and so forth. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I make a motion to close this public hearing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh I’m sorry anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this application? MEMBER GEOHRINGER : This is the Fishers Island application. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay then I make a motion to close this hearing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6884 – CHRISTOPHER and ELISABETTA COSCHIGNANO BOARD ASSISTANT : The next hearing before the Board is for Christopher and Elisabetta Coschignano # 6884 request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s June 19, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct a deck addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet, 2) more than the maximum code allowable lot coverage of 20% located at 1110 Gillette Drive in East Marion. FRANK UELLENDAHL : Good morning. My name is Frank Uellendahl I’m representing the owners at 1110 Gillette Drive in East Marion. As you can see they’re asking for a deck. When the house ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting was built in the 50’s early 50’s the previous or the original owners obviously didn’t care much about outdoor living. The living room as you can see on site plan of my floor plan is entered to the east to the road and the west where we have this open beautiful field and the back yard has three small windows. One is the kitchen the other one is the bathroom and a small bedroom. Then at one point a little den area was added and what our my or the applicants would like since there is no outdoor living space is a deck. They have three small children. The beach is down the road. They would like to basically square off the deck with the existing building corners incorporate the outdoor shower right behind the bathroom. We’re going to rebuild the bilco door that goes into the basement to make it level with the deck and we’re going to add sliding door in the den so it actually opens out to the right now there is a small door with a couple of steps going down so the house really doesn’t open out to the back yard at all. Now this requires actually two variances. First we’re 200 and something square feet over the 20% allowable coverage and the since we’re lining up the deck with the den the den already is located partially in the rear yard so we are dealing with two variances area variances. I was trying to see to come up with a solution where we could avoid any variance that would of really cut the deck back almost in half. We do have the AC unit, we have the bilco door there. They do want the outdoor shower so this is and they said well listen we really need this in order to have a dining table with our kids and enjoy our summer time out in East Marion. So they’re requesting the two variances and I hope you will agree with them. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : George any questions? MEMBER HORNING : You’re saying the house was built in the 1950”s? FRANK UELLENDAHL : Yea based on the property card it was sold in the mid 50’s so it may have even been built earlier. MEMBER HORNING : It appears that that neighborhood all the houses have a similar front yard setback. Were they all built around the same time? FRANK UELLENDAHL : I believe they were all built around the same time. They’re 100 by 100, ten thousand square foot lots with 35 foot front yard but even the building as you see on the site plan is located at 30 feet off the street lot 9 so it’s a tight buildable area but all homes used to probably be cottages that were used as a summer cottage and now of course people are paying a lot of money for those structures and we live in 2015. We have a different lifestyle. You see a lot more you know second floor additions and built up along Gillette Drive. The nice thing about Gillette Drive is that it’s not condensed. It’s open to the adjacent agricultural lot and facing west so that’s beautiful sun all day long. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Did you do any research on other variances that may have been granted within the neighborhood for lot coverage, setbacks? FRANK UELLENDAHL : Well no I did not I could see next door right north the neighbor to the north may have had to I can look into this George. That would be an easy kind of research. MEMBER HORNING : See what maybe you can give us a listing of that. FRANK UELLENDAHL : But I do want to point out that we’re talking about a relatively low deck. The first floor is relatively low to the ground. It’s only a couple of steps down and the building itself the structure is not going to alter. It’s going to stay the same and the deck is really hardly visible from the street. MEMBER HORNING : That’s quite true. Anyways I know there’s been variances granted within the neighborhood so if you could just come up with something quick that would be nice. FRANK UELLENDAHL : I’ll be discussing this with the office. MEMBER HORNING : It’s to your advantage to do that. FRANK UELLENDAHL : Okay thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : This proposed deck Frank is going to be open to the sky right? FRANK UELLENDAHL : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay it’s not going to be enclosed. FRANK UELLENDAHL : No no there is no roof nothing it’s totally open to the sky. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : When you’re doing that analysis since we’re comparing apples to apples we’re not concerned I’m not concerned with the through parcels that are 100 by 200. I’m concerned about the single parcels that are 100 by 100 cause that is basically this particular parcel okay? FRANK UELLENDAHL : Correct okay. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : NO. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have no further questions either. Is anybody in the audience who would like to address this application? Alright hearing no respond I will make a motion to close ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting this hearing subject to the submission of variances other variances in the location to support this application. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6860 – STEVEN and ANDREA KOLYER BOARD ASSISTANT : Next hearing is (re-opened by Board Resolution due to error in Notice of Disapproval) request for variances under Article III Code Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector’s March 9, 2015 revised July 20, 2015 Notice of Disapproval for a building permit for a subdivision at Proposed Lot 1- (lot 10) 1) less than the code required minimum lot size of 80,000 sq. ft. 2) less than the code required minimum lot width of 175 feet, Proposed Lot 2 – (lot9) 1) less than the code required minimum lot size of 80,000 sq. ft. 2) less than the code required minimum lot depth of 250 feet located at 4075 Paradise Point Rd. (adj. to a boat basin) Southold NY. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of the Kolyers. I just want to be sure I know you’ve received this document in the past but I’m going to continue to provide it which is the map of Paradise Point and which parcels we’re discussing. I’ve highlighted it in yellow and just make sure it gets into your file. I know I’ve given it to you in the past. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Does anybody want to look at this? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : We would respectfully request an adjournment of this hearing and leaving it open for now. We want to have an opportunity to review everything and we didn’t want to have the time clock clicking for either one of us so we would ask that it be adjourned. You can take whatever comments you want today but as you’re required to but leave the hearing open for now. MEMBER SCNEIDER : Okay. Anybody in the audience would like to speak to this application? Approach the podium there. THOMAS DEAN : Thomas Dean. Donna Mortimer Dean 3895 Paradise Point Rd. lot 10 on the map directly next door to applicant’s property. We are in the uncomfortable position of being friendly with the Kolyers and going to ask you to deny this. I know that there’s going to be an adjournment so I think that we would probably do this again but you know we’re naturally concerned about the effect of having this subdivision here and afraid that it would cause environmental and clustering housing affect in this area that is you know called Paradise and all the residence feel that this natural separation in the houses, houses so close together would be a real change in that and cause a lot more traffic and then I think it would naturally cause another application for a dock on this basin which I don’t know if anybody has been out there is quite small and another dock in that basin I think would be a safety hazard. I would say that there’s other things but if you’re going to adjourn this then I will see you soon alright thank you very much. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Thank you for your comments. We’ll poll the members the applicant would like to adjourn this I make a motion PAT MOORE : You want to set it for a date in October or November? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It’s going to have to be November. PAT MOORE : Yea you said if it was with a date it then it doesn’t have to be re-noticed so since we’ve already done the notices a couple of times so MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So November 5 th. We don’t have a time yet do we? 10 am. PAT MOORE : 10 o’clock November 5 th thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER HORNING : Aye. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6883 BERTHA LYNCH, (ESTATE OF) BOARD ASSISTANT : The next hearing is for Bertha Lynch, Estate of # 6883 request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s March 9, 2015 renewed July 17, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for “as built” deck addition to existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required rear yard setback of 50 feet, 2) “as built” deck addition places in-ground swimming pool in location other than the code required rear yard located at 135 Case Road (corner of Bay Rd.) in Cutchogue. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is there someone here to address this application? Please state your name and address please. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes I am. My name is Joan Chambers. I live at 50620 Rt. 25 in Southold and I’m representing Dion Lynch who is the executor for his mother’s estate Bertha Lynch. Basically what we have here is the swimming pool was built legally and has a C.O. The swimming pool and the enclosure and that C.O. is from let me see 1976 and then they put a deck addition over a patio besides the swimming pool and that was C.O.’d in 1990 but that was a grade level deck over an existing patio and then subsequently the boys built a deck that connected the house to the swimming pool without a permit and without a C.O. So they put an application in to have this included in the C.O. and when it was examined by connecting the deck to the swimming pool that became the rear yard now and now we have only 26.7 feet between that deck and the rear yard line which is the east property line the one that runs north south is now the rear yard of this house because it’s on a corner lot which sort of confused me too how the side yard turned into the rear yard but it did. So they’re really looking for two things here. One is the fact that the deck was built without a permit and now it’s in the you know it’s far too close to the property line for you’re the 50 feet of the rear yard setback that’s required and also that now the swimming pool is partially in the side yard which it should have to be fully in a back yard so there’s really two issues here. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : How long has the swimming pool been there? JOAN CHAMBERS : Swimming pool was C.O.’d in 1976 that’s the C.O. I have for it which is in the package there somewhere. Yea swimming pool and fence enclosure 1976 and then in 1990 we have a C.O. for the deck addition over an existing patio but that isn’t the deck that is 30 inches out the ground that was a grade level patio that they simply covered with deck boards but went and got a permit to do. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That was the one September 13, 1990. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes that’s correct. MEMBER HORNING : When the pool was built was it in the rear yard? JOAN CHAMBERS : I believe that would have been considered the rear yard at the time unless the code is changed since then which I really don’t know. MEMBER HORNING : It doesn’t seem that it would have been the rear yard. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Again we gotta interpretations from building inspectors at different times so maybe MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I guess if you were to use Bay Rd. as a front yard then perhaps you could say it’s in the rear yard but I think Case Rd. is predominant front yard here. JOAN CHAMBERS : Bay Rd is just a stub there you know as you can see there really isn’t you know it’s just dead ends at the country club property right there. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well what’s unique about this parcel also it’s an L-shaped parcel with another parcel filling in the L on Bay Rd. so it’s like one and a half sort of front yards. MEMBER HORNING : So ma’am approximately what percentage of the pool now is in the side yard? JOAN CHAMBERS : I’m sorry I don’t have percentages with me. I’m assuming now that they think the property line is running from east to west is now the side yard of the house. I don’t really know you know ok Vicki is showing it to you. MEMBER HORNING : We’re guessing around 50 percent of it. JOAN CHAMBERS : That’s what I would guess. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : George any questions? ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : No no more questions. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes. There’s no doubt that the swimming pool is a regards to the condition of it it’s a pretty substantial structure okay and so it does have a C.O.? JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And in reference to the deck areas we’re referring mainly to that deck area which is just to the south of the swimming pool is that not JOAN CHAMBERS : That’s correct the one that is on the east side of the house. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : On the east side of the house. I’m going to put an X on that side over that situation so I guess if anything had to be removed it would be a portion of that deck area that anything would have to be removed because that’s the deck area that does not have the C.O. on it. JOAN CHAMBERS : That’s correct. That’s the structure that they did not permit or get a C.O. for that we’re trying to make this legal and that’s the one that on the furthest east corner of it it’s only 26.7 feet from the property line and if that’s considered the rear yard that should be 50 feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So let me ask you this question Ms. Chambers why don’t you give us and I’m not speaking for the Board an estimated cost of removing that deck and what it would cost the Estate to do so if the Board was so inclined not to grant it. JOAN CHAMBERS : Okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Is the deck in operating condition? It appeared to be when I was in there. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes it is it’s in good shape. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It’s in good shape so and possibly the importance of that deck to the overall configuration of that whole pool area you know in that situation. I’d like to see that so you know we know how important it is you know the cost and number two how important it is for the entire situation. Does anybody have an objection to that? MEMBER DANTES : I don’t. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You don’t have an objection to that? ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : No I just don’t think it’s necessary. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You don’t think it’s necessary? MEMBER HORNING : How about we find out about other variances in the that may have been granted in the neighborhood for pools in the side yard. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We can do both. MEMBER HORNING : That would be very important (inaudible) and boost your clients case if you could uncover any variances that have been granted in the past for within you know the neighborhood. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And when you refer to the neighborhood we’re referring to the farthest east road in this this is really kind of like a little area you know you got the country club in front of you and these roads do not run terribly deep. They run to the country club so you’re referring to the area of Moores Lane to the opposite side of that huge house. MEMBER HORNING : Meadow Lane to MEMBER DANTES : Can you (inaudible) point exactly which section of the deck we’re talking about here cause I’m unclear as to JOAN CHAMBERS : You’re referring to what? MEMBER DANTES : Which section of the deck that doesn’t have the C.O. and which one does. JOAN CHAMBERS : This section here. This is all patio here and this little piece of deck evidently got a permit and a certificate of occupancy to cover this piece of patio with decking which I’m amazed they even did that. So this deck here here’s the sliding glass doors that you know people come out of and obviously this is (inaudible) so they connected this and put steps down to the swimming pool. MEMBER DANTES : Now the 27 feet does that go this deck or JOAN CHAMBERS : Twenty seven feet goes from this corner to this property line. MEMBER DANTES : And then this deck is closer to the property line than this deck? JOAN CHAMBERS : That’s right. MEMBER DANTES : So the new deck is ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : This new deck that they built was you know behind the front of the house you know within the pool you know I’m not condoning doing things without permits but they did keep it within allotted parameters that they already had it isn’t like they (inaudible) side of the pool you know so this didn’t go any further than this deck that had already been built. MEMBER DANTES : So there’s a deck in front of it they built a deck behind the deck that already existed and the pool is closer to the property line than the new deck. JOAN CHAMBERS : That’s correct and the pool is surrounded by concrete patio and then this of course is the front of the house so the pool was put in you know behind you know what they considered their front yard well behind it. This is a little bit easier to see here you can see the structure of the house like this. MEMBER DANTES : And then it the technicality is that this property has two front yards. JOAN CHAMBERS : That’s correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Eric any other questions? MEMBER DANTES : No that was it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Let me just ask the Board a question. There’s no doubt that this house has been in existence for many years and that we have one addition to a deck that does not have a C.O. on it apart from the other issue that exists. Is there a tremendous objection from anyone on the Board regarding this deck that exists you know because you know I’m trying to get information on how we could possibly deal with it along with George’s suggestion of finding out if there are variances in the area. I mean you know this is something I’m just trying to determine here. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don’t have a problem with it at this point. I you know the pool has a C.O. and I think it’s fine. MEMBER DANTES : I agree with Ken. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay. Can you just give us the square footage of that deck that is not within you know the C.O.’d area so that we JOAN CHAMBERS : 430 square feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So George you are still requesting that information as reference to C.O.’s I mean ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Well I think it would be handy in terms to the character of the neighborhood to know whether or not there have been any variances granted in the neighborhood or you know non-conforming decks, setbacks of that and or I mean not necessarily the pool because they created their own hardship with the pool because it does have a C.O. or and the deck the non-conforming deck is what made the pool non-compliant. JOAN CHAMBERS : Non-compliant exactly. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay so I guess MEMBER HORNING : And there might not be any variances granted within that neighborhood but I don’t know of any but I haven’t been on the Board forever either. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well the house next door let me see that map. I’m just giving this to you there is a relatively new house that we had an application for probably about ten twelve years ago for the garage in the front yard area. It was attached and so you’ll see that one come up and but I have to tell that from my recollection there isn’t too much that you may find but so whatever you choose to do is fine with me. JOAN CHAMBERS : Alright and you want estimates from contractors on the cost. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It appears that I’m not going to need that from this particular point and I hate to ask the Board that question but this is sometimes a little arduous when we’re dealing with one particular area where everything else seems to be C.O.’d and I did know the doctor quite well and who owned this property and JOAN CHAMBERS : Okay. Yea I think this one family has owned it since it was built. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Since it was built. JOAN CHAMBERS : In 1965 or so it was built MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Not that it has anything to do with it I mean you know I knew him and it was that was basically the situation but it is an older house there’s no question about it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have a quick question. What was there before the deck? JOAN CHAMBERS : I believe there was just you came down the steps from the sliding glass door walked across a little walkway opened the gate and stepped onto the pool patio. I don’t know that for sure. I’m just guessing by you know how the house is laid out. I can see if there’s photographs maybe what was there before they built the deck. I could ask Dion if you wanted to know what was there. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I think that’s relevant. You can submit that. JOAN CHAMBERS : Okay. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Any other questions from anybody? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. MEMBER SHCNEIDER : Anybody in the audience who would like to address this application? Seeing no one in the audience I make a motion to close this hearing subject to possible pictures that you may have of the deck area and other variances in the neighborhood. JOAN CHAMBERS : Great understand. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank you second. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6879 THOMAS GIESE and PAULETTER GARAFALO BOARD ASSISTANT : The next hearing Thomas Giese and Paulette Garafalo # 6879 request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116B, Article III Section 280-15 and Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s June 24, amended July 23, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool and for an “as built” deck addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) “as built” deck addition at less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) “as built” deck addition at less than the code required minimum total side yard setbacks of 35 feet, 3) “as built” deck addition and proposed accessory in-ground swimming pool at less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, 4) proposed accessory in-ground swimming pool located ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting in other than the code required rear yard or front yard for waterfront property located at 2195 Nassau Point Road (adj. to Hog Neck Bay) in Cutchogue. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is someone here to represent this application? PAT MOORE : Yes thank you Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicants. Tom Giese is here so he will help me answer any questions that might come up. I’ve given you this morning in addition to all the other paperwork you have in your file a list of all the variances, the tax map numbers copy of the you have a copy of the tax map I believe in the file. These are the lots and the variances that have been granted in the past. I’ve given you the decisions that were most relevant be it a pool in a side yard or generally pools in the side yard or setbacks from a bulkhead. I could certainly get all of them for you but that is all public record and I wanted to give you the ones that were most applicable I thought. So that you have in your file now I also provided for you a printed google earth map which is a nice overview aerial view of the neighborhood as well. I’ll start there where you can see that I’ve put an arrow on the Giese house. You can see that the house is situated on an angle. It has the closest point in line with most of the homes on this block. There are certainly some homes to the west which are very close to the bulkhead. The properties here on Nassau Point were all accustomed to Nassau Point bluffs but here in this area of Nassau Point by the start of Nassau Point is are the land is almost at the same level as the beach and the bulkheads have been used mostly as equivalent to retaining walls to keep the soil at a higher elevation but they are not the high bluffs that we are accustomed to in Nassau Point. You can also see that the neighbored one neighbor to the west has a similar application to ours or similar situation to ours. They don’t they never got a variance and I’m assuming that the pool was built prior to the need for a variance for a side yard because the pool is in fact in their side yard. It is contiguous to the location where we would want to have our pool the proposed pool to be located. Again I think pictures are worth a thousand words. If you go to the set of photographs that I gave you in your file you’ll see one of the photographs which has an angle that shows the deck that is in question the side yard deck and the patio in the back which is the location of the proposed pool so you can see that with respect to the pool there is an existing patio there right now and the proposed setback of the pool is almost I want to say is over part of the patio and again because the house is on an angle the pool runs along the rear of the house and pushed towards the bulkhead. Again the bulkhead is in this case similar to a retaining wall in that the waterfront is much further outward mean high tide is several feet about thirty feet beyond what would be the bulkhead. That somewhat describes for you the typography here. The deck is a cleanup because there was a permit or there is a permit for the deck. My client when he purchased the property the deck was there. The only modification ever made to the deck was adding a set of steps that go to the back yard. The old survey shows the deck there and the exact dimensions of the deck were somewhat vague in the permitting process so the Zoning Board said clean it up it’ll be just a ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting good record to have for the as built deck that we have there. It’s a 14 by 14 deck. Again you can see it on the side of the property. It is as you typically described open to the sky and you can also see in the way it’s been constructed that it appears to be about the same (inaudible) as the modification the renovations to the house which were done several years ago so at the time the railings were changed. It was time for new railings and the boards were replaced but the infrastructure of the deck is the same. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Pat we have a letter from the LWRP coordinator did you see that? PAT MOORE : No I have not. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : He’s declaring it inconsistent with the LWRP. I have a copy for you if you’d like to come get it. PAT MOORE : Oh thanks. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It’s dated August 20 th. PAT MOORE : Okay well I see the inconsistency I guess is not a surprise because we are asking for an as built deck but as I’ve described the deck had a permit just the dimensions of it are not clear whether or not it was modified during the time that it was under construction originally in the 70’s and just that the survey is shows it still shows the covered like a covered roof side entrance and then it shows the deck so again this would any modification to this deck would have been done by a prior owner not my clients. They built it excuse me they bought it with a C of O and believed that the deck was conforming. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : C of O for the house? PAT MOORE : C of O for the house I believe also includes a C of O for a deck. There’s one for a deck. It’s in the packet. I’d have to locate it but you have it. You have all the C of O’s. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : In my does that refer to the deck that’s along the bulkhead? PAT MOORE : No, no it shows a picture of the side. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Alright. PAT MOORE : Again when that deck was built the setbacks were 5 feet so it was conforming and it didn’t need a variance. With respect to the LWRP recommendation regarding the pool the pool and the house is outside is not in the flood zone so let’s see Nassau Point would be he’s showing it yea actually I can’t say that because it’s half the house is in the VE the pool is an open structure so as far as it’s actually going to be it’s proposed to be placed starting at the furthest corner at ten feet from the property line so I would say based on this map which is ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting somewhat of a generous you know with that I would say 90 percent of this pool is actually outside of the flood zone all together if you put if you draw in where the flood zone line appears to be just based on my survey I take it back about three quarters of the pool is outside the flood zone but again the pool is not a habitable structure so pools do not have to comply with flood elevations if it’s flooded it gets filled and it becomes a salt water pool so. The probably the most serious storm we’ve ever had in our history has been Sandy and the house was never affected by Sandy. MEMBER DANTES : Did Sandy do any damage to the bulkhead? PAT MOORE : No bulkhead damage. That was Mr. Giese who was answering that question for your record. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Gerry do you have any questions right now? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I have several questions right now. PAT MOORE : Alright go right ahead. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : One of the main concerns that I have as you know is basically filling in your side yards you got 8.2 on one side and you’re gonna have 10 on the opposite side I realize that you’re referring to this as a low retaining wall and I realize that you may have taken some water over the bulkhead during Sandy but I can’t understand why the pool is going in this location. I think it should go in the rear of the house which is basically the front yard area and should be able to leave that existing basically 22.3 feet or at least a portion of it open for the purpose of the access because 8.2 is probably not enough to get machinery to when you want to actually god forbid someday you might have to replace that bulkhead and that’s just my opinion and it’s always been my opinion. This has nothing to do basically with any of the owners of this property or any of that situation. My main concern is always access to the bulkhead and so that’s my opinion I’m just going to go with. PAT MOORE : Okay. Well that’s a good point. What I had discussed with Mr. Giese was the possibility that we may have to modify the 16 by 40 and if we had to the setback to the bulkhead is really not a significant issue here as far as it’s the bulkhead is not a significant structural bulkhead. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Let me just answer that question okay. There was great luck with storm Sandy that storm Sandy came out of the southwest. If storm Sandy came out of the northeast I have a feeling that the destruction would have been much much greater. We destroyed in Mattituck 619 feet of bulkhead gone with storm Sandy because of that southwest exposure. I reviewed the properties by boat after storm Sandy as you got farther out of Nassau ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting Point and it was significant flooding damage out there and a lot of stuff had to be rebuilt but to be perfectly honest with you all that situation could change okay based and please god forbid I’m not suggesting it ever would happen within and hopefully never does but our bulkhead now is quite a bit higher on this wonderful park district beach that we own in Mattituck. However the engineer on the project and the owner of the corporation that did it said we cannot guarantee that this bulkhead will take another storm like storm Sandy. After spending almost $350,000 on this bulkhead and we said we hoped that you are kidding and they said well that’s all I can tell you. He said we’re using the best design we ever did and it’s a tremendous firm that did the job but the lower the bulkhead the more hit you’re going to take out of and please again I’m just making a statement. I am still standing by my guns that I think the pool should go in the rear of the house which is basically the front yard but PAT MOORE : Well unfortunately I mean most people do not like pools in the front yard. They are they tend to be well MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I think you can achieve the same view okay from one section of the pool that you’re trying to achieve and at the same time protecting everything regarding this property. PAT MOORE : It would still put us in the side yard though. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It wouldn’t make any difference. It’s still we realize that you have limited I realize you have limited areas that you can put this pool okay and I’m just throwing it out to you. I just can’t see filling in the side yards okay and it’s an infilling situation and that’s one of the main concerns. You know you’ve taken testimony from me many many times regarding this and I’m leaving it at that situation. That doesn’t mean I prejudge this application. I’m just telling you that’s my concern. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : George any questions? MEMBER HORNING : Sure I want to not to belabor too much but you submitted a bunch of papers today Pat is that right? PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER HORNING : Would in mentioning other variances in the neighborhood PAT MOORE : Correct. MEMBER HORNING : which we love to have. I just want to make sure that we have the right information Ken cause I glanced through it and I could not figure out what this 4449 in a totally ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting different seemingly different neighborhood in Southold was listed in here so that was one question I have but then so PAT MOORE : Let me pull it out I had my secretary pull all of them. MEMBER HORNING : Alright well I just wanted to go through the top of the order of these things board action 6240 PAT MOORE : Right that was an accessory garage. MEMBER HORNING : And that’s in the proper area let me see let me go through the paperwork if I can if you bear with me for a minute. As you gave it to us 6563 is here and I checked it off PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER HORNING : then going on further we have I’ll get to it PAT MOORE : 2486 MEMBER HORNING : 2486 correct I checked it off going on further we have 5902 PAT MOORE : Correct. MEMBER HORNING : Correct okay and going on further PAT MOORE : I did not include 2473 that’s MEMBER HORNING : Okay we’ll talk about that in a minute. Then we have 4451 included in the submission. Going on through this more we have 6240 PAT MOORE : Correct. MEMBER HORNING : Submitted a copy of we’re talking about the decisions rendered by the ZBA in the past in the neighborhood. Then the last thing I found was this 4449 PAT MOORE : Right. MEMBER HORNING : And I wondered what relevance that had to this. PAT MOORE : Well it was cited in the it may have been an error in the computer when it was listed. We pulled from the computer for tax map 104-13-12 and 4449 was listed as applying as that set of variances but I see what you’re saying it’s West Hill Rd. in Southold so MEMBER HORNING : Yea it’s not in the neighborhood. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yea it’s not in the neighborhood. It just appeared in the computer so we always include all of the ones that are part of that packet but that’s not right. MEMBER HORNING : And copies of the decisions that you did not include in the packet was 2473 is that correct? PAT MOORE : Correct because garage in the front yard didn’t seem applicable. MEMBER HORNING : 2486 PAT MOORE : Correct. MEMBER HORNING : 2767 and 2899 PAT MOORE : Correct. MEMBER HORNING : Those are not included okay thank you. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Have you considered reducing the pool size to create a greater distance from the bulkhead? PAT MOORE : We had discussed that if the Board felt that that would be appropriate mitigation. I have my client here which who helps then determine what would be acceptable to him. The ten foot setback was a conforming setback so none of us thought that was an issue. Not realizing how Mr. Goehringer would feel about it I didn’t anticipate that so he makes a good point but it was conforming so we didn’t have we didn’t consider alternative come on up it has to be on the record so they have to hear you. MR. GIESE : Tom Giese. Once we saw the actual drawing in drawn to scale we realized that it was rather large and we would thinking of reducing the size of it already so being ten feet off the property line we would probably come where it will be almost at least 15 maybe 20 feet off the line with a smaller pool. PAT MOORE : 16 by 20 is the more MR. GIESE : 16 by 30 maybe something 32 I don’t know what the standard sizes are but MEMBER GOEHRINGER : 16 by 32 is a standard size. MR. GIESE : 16 by 32 okay so it would probably be more in that size. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You would try to increase the bulkhead setback. PAT MOORE : We were thinking we would increase the bulkhead setback by reduction of the size of the pool. Which way you want us to apply the addition the reduction is up to the Board. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I think it should be applied both ways. Both as a setback from the property line and PAT MOORE : If we go from a forty to a thirty two MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Forty to thirty two. PAT MOORE : Yea 16 by 32 oh no well wait a second yea we have to you know what I probably would want to have it surveyed just to be sure because it’s on an angle so it’s not a clear reduction one way or another but we can certainly MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can it go any closer to the house? Can it go eight feet to the house? MR. GIESE : I don’t know what the ruling is how far it has to be from the house. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It has to be ten feet? Is there a basement in this house? MR. GIESE : There is in the front yard not in the back yard. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Go 8.6 PAT MOORE : I’m sorry are you saying something? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I’m saying it could go 8.6 to the house. PAT MOORE : Oh minimum 8.6? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And since there’s no particular basement really there and PAT MOORE : We have 8 feet is the stairs what is this I forget. MR. GIESE : That’s the stone patio. PAT MOORE : Oh just a stone patio okay. MEMBER DANTES : I’m just worried about the excavator I mean MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I don’t know if I’d want to go too close to the house. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We used to go five. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You just don’t dig you have to dig larger than MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I don’t care as long as you give me 14 on the what you call it MEMBER HORNING : Sir did you considered putting it in a side yard the pool? MR. GIESE : That is an option size wise I don’t know what we could fit in there but I think that would bring into the egress again with the property line. MEMBER HORNING : Well you’re blocking that not completely from the house but with PAT MOORE : Which side are we talking about? MEMBER HORNING : Well the only side it would fit would be the south side. PAT MOORE : Where the stone wall is now yea. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea. MEMBER HORNING : I’m just curious Gerry mentioned something about the road side the front yard. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That is the front yard. That’s a side yard it’s really a side yard. So I can tell you submit it and we’ll review it that’s all I can tell you. PAT MOORE : Is there a distance that you mentioned on side yard you wanted to see least I think you mentioned thirteen feet or something like that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well twelve, thirteen. PAT MOORE : Thirteen okay. So I can give my surveyor a little bit of guidance so. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Anybody have any objection to that? MEMBER HORNING : Which side the north side Gerry? PAT MOORE : The south side being 13 feet rather than the 10. MEMBER SHCNEIDER : Giving more of a side yard. PAT MOORE : Increasing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The reason why the machinery is about 965, 9 feet 6 inches to get to the bulkhead if it has to be replaced and so you know they get all kinds of other stuff that ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting they’re bringing in equipment in and so on and so forth so you know you really need ten twelve feet. MR. GIESE : Also I don’t know if it makes a difference we’re only the third house off the causeway. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : If you need permission from the association to go across it and then you need it from the DEC from the other three pieces of property two pieces so there’s really no indication you’re going to get either one of those and the only other choice you have then is to come in with a (inaudible) and actually just put it right on the away for a flood high tide pull it out and so those are the two options or the three options that you have. PAT MOORE : You can also talk to the pool person about the design. Maybe get into a design because if it was curved that might actually provide a better you know the compliant thirteen plus MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea they call that a free flow but you can also put in a fiberglass which is even better in some locations and it really reduces the width of the pool but keeps the same useable situation. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Pat something else we’d like to see we need to mitigate the LWRP. They’re requiring a pool de-watering well. I don’t know how this pool’s going to be filtered or we’ll need a well for that and also a non-turf buffer five feet (inaudible) MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I thought they said ten. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Ten? MEMBER GOEHRINER : Did they say ten? No five? PAT MOORE : No we didn’t say anything we assume the Trustees would ask MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So would the Trustees take okay PAT MOORE : Typically yea. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So then we’ll condition it if we so you know decide to grant PAT MOORE : Right right we have to have Trustee approval. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : A Trustee approved non-turf buffer with salt tolerant plants and also on the survey we’d like to see the flood zones. So you could submit that with the size of the pool do we did you come up with a number on that or are you need to play around with the designs? ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : No we’re going to try to do it by way of setbacks primarily concentrating on the side yard setback MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Side yard and PAT MOORE : and if we can based on what happens is once we move away from the side yard we may be encroaching try not to go closer to the bulkhead but we’re pushing we might be pushing it towards the north so it gets a little tricky there so MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea but if you can give us a greater bulkhead setback we’d appreciate it. PAT MOORE : I’ll do the best we can. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The only one that we granted recently was for Mr. Frieman and he is on Cutchogue Harbor elevation is quite a bit different than what it is here but may want to pick that one up and take a look at it. That’s a fiberglass pool. This is Sandy Frieman. PAT MOORE : Oh Sandy. MEMBER DANTES : When was that? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : About two years ago. MEMBER DANTES : That was before my time. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Just before your time. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so any other questions members? Anyone in the audience who would like to address this application? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : My only question to Ms. Moore when do you think you can get this back to us? PAT MOORE : It’ll just be a question of how quickly Peconic Surveyors can revise the survey so MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So let’s leave it open until the private meeting. PAT MOORE : Well I was going to say why don’t you leave it open or close the meeting subject to receipt of our proposal. Would that make sense? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Sure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well why don’t we just leave it open until the Special Meeting? ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It’s up to you however you want to. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What close it subject to this MEMBER GOEHRINGER : To the receipt of this. PAT MOORE : Yea cause it’s going to be your decision ultimately so if you tell us don’t go closer than thirteen feet to the side yard and we have 33 we put 34 to the bulkhead then we kind of work around that. We’re going to see if we can work around it now so MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We’ll just adjourn it to the Special so you give it to us and if we have any questions we’ll PAT MOORE : Okay fine. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea we may have questions. PAT MOORE : If you have questions yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It’s so much easier that way. PAT MOORE : That’s fine not a problem. I think I (inaudible) just going to give it you just in case I had done a color to try to figure out what the side deck original permit was so I used the old Luwendowski survey I think this is the survey you got in ’97 when this is the one when they bought the property and it shows the wood deck on the side but the dimensions aren’t shown. It does show the house at 12 feet and the deck being closer so MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Are you referring to the one that’s just adjacent to the south of PAT MOORE : To the north. The deck this is the deck that we’re talking about MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Right. PAT MOORE : Okay this the house I put orange on the cause our survey shows the one story portion and then the steps that were added with the deck was using the same structure so I’ll give that MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Before we go to a recess I just wanted to refer to the google map that you have given us and the applicants excuse me the property owner to the south of your clients property which you indicated the pool and which is something I’ve never seen before I mean I don’t believe we granted that in any way. PAT MOORE : I didn’t I looked for a variance expecting to find one and I didn’t see it so you’re jurisdiction on bulkhead setbacks was ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : 1982 PAT MOORE : ’82 so it could be right before that. I can’t tell if there’s a deck around it. MR. GIESE : Stone. It’s also raised up a little higher than our property so that’s where the elevation starts going up Nassau Point. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Right. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay. So make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting subject to submittal of the survey and plans. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6877 – 430 WSD, LLC. BOARD ASSISTANT – The next hearing before the Board is for 430 WSD LLC. # 6877 request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXII Section 280-116B and Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s June 19, amended June 22, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct a porch addition to an under construction single family dwelling and an accessory in-ground swimming pool, at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 2) proposed porch and accessory swimming pool at less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, 3) proposed accessory in- ground swimming pool located in other than the code required rear yard or front yard for waterfront property located at 430 West Shore Drive (adj. to Southold Bay) in Southold. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is there someone here to represent this application? ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yes Patricia Moore on behalf. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Ms. Moore before you get started we have an LWRP PAT MOORE : I just received it thank you. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Carry on. PAT MOORE : Again I’m presenting to you today the list of variances that have been granted on this block West Shore Drive. This is a highly non-conforming subdivision so there are quite a number of variances along the waterfront here. Pretty much every parcel except an oversized parcel 3.1 so and also I attached the decisions that appear to be most relevant to the variance before you. I have also attached a google map and the google map shows the prior house where the previous house was located and you can see that the homes are all very close to the property to the bulkhead. My client demolished the existing house and in building the new house pushed the house back to a conforming 75 feet from the bulkhead. The reason we’re here is that he wants to add a covered porch on the rear of the house and that will encroach into the 75 feet. But as you can see that the there are numerous variances and these setbacks of homes and accessory structures are significantly closer than what we’re proposing here. I also want to point out while I was very nicely surprised when I get a consistency review so the LWRP at least in this case finds it all consistent. This application this due to Sandy there was a reconstruction of the entire bulkhead so it has a brand new bulkhead. As part of the permitting process for the bulkhead the Trustees had my client remove what is the equivalent of the deck that was on the bulkhead or overlapping the slope to the bulkhead identical to the parcel to the west or north pardon me. So as part of the condition of the Trustees condition to grant us approval for the bulkhead we ended up having to remove what would be a permitted a previously permitted structure. That being said this parcel was made significantly more conforming to all environmental standards. At this point they he has also proposed a pool in a side yard technically in a side yard and the way the house was constructed was with the intention of down the line putting a pool tucked in to that side yard and leaving room for the pool so that it would not extend further than the same line as the covered porch. So Mr. Casola who’s here today is the principal of 430 WSD LLC. There was a lot of thought and a lot of attempts to conform to the extent possible. I’m here to answer any other questions you might have. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : George any questions? MEMBER HORNING : It’s a new structure going up after demolition that’s correct Pat? PAT MOORE : Yes the new house is going in after the demolition of the new of the old house correct. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : A building permit was issued? PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER HORNING : When? PAT MOORE : Pardon me. MEMBER HORNING : When? PAT MOORE : In May. MEMBER HORNING : This card says April 16. PAT MOORE : Okay it could be April yea. Construction probably started in May. MEMBER HORNING : Two or three months ago let’s say is when PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER HORNING : What was the consideration then to have a porch or a pool? PAT MOORE : Well the you wouldn’t be able to put a pool behind the house no matter what. This is their home. It’s their they Casola’s have two children and they’re getting older. The house was pushed back to a conforming setback MEMBER HORNING : As you said. PAT MOORE : Yea. No it that’s at 75 feet yea realistically the well their trying to get the living space completed in time before the winter so there was a need to break up this process in to conforming versus non-conforming. The pool location wouldn’t go in the front yard here cause you have a sanitary system. It’s tucked in to the side and that’s what was purposely left space behind the garage to put a pool because again you wouldn’t want to put a pool in the rear yard next to the bulkhead so realizing that was the most practical location so otherwise you wouldn’t of been able to build it. MEMBER HORNING : Are you saying then let’s say then in regard to the proposed porch that you went to the building department with building plans that did not include the porch for them PAT MOORE : Correct. MEMBER HORNING : even though there were plans to have a porch? PAT MOORE : Well they wanted to have a porch and that’s why they’re here. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Right and then someone advised the client or whatever the applicant that no you’re going to be denied because by the Building Department because you’re going to have a non-conforming setback now so let’s go for that later. PAT MOORE : But understand something that porch would of held up construction of the house which is really the important significant structure to the family. The porch is something that is desired and it’s not an environmental detriment here at all. It’s a covered porch that allows them to have a dining room table outside dining table outside covered. That’s what they had in their old house but we demolished the old house so that wasn’t available here for them to use or that was the plan for the old house. We actually made everything more conforming so given the fact that the more significant basement and structure is the house and you’re making that conforming you would think that adding a porch which is pretty standard request for the Board that the Board would consider that you know favorably rather than as a penalty because you didn’t ask when it was attached to the house realistically you know the house is the most important MEMBER HORNING : I was curious as to you know especially since a building permit was issued just very recently. I mean there’s a parallel let’s say to maybe a parallel someone comes in and wants a deck you know and really they want an enclosed porch but they figure well they’ll get the deck first and then a year or two later they go for enclosing it you know and in this process of just dividing things up PAT MOORE : Well I’m not that’s not necessarily the case here because what you’re describing is often times when you’re giving an approval for a deck you do say open to the sky so if you want a covered deck which we want it’s not an enclosed porch it’s just a covered porch open we’re telling you right off the bat we’d like a cover over it because of you know it’s a roofed over and allows for more protection so that’s what we’re coming in with. MEMBER HORNING : You’re proposing an unheated unconditioned space. PAT MOORE : Open unheated come on up. MEMBER HORNING : No plan to close it. PAT MOORE : No no plan to screen it. Open on all sides. MEMBER HORNING : And the pool just to address that quickly in my period of questioning would you say that that is the only feasible location to have the pool or did you look at alternative locations? ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : We did look at well there really aren’t any alternative locations. As I said the front yard I show you the survey that has a sanitary system in the front. That was a system compliant system in the front yard and that’s a new system because when you build a new house you have to put in a new system. The garage we connected it so that it would again we’d have room for the sanitary system and still have an ability to have the garage so everything was very carefully positioned here. The MEMBER HORNING : The way you mentioned the garage would you say that that’s an attached garage now? PAT MOORE : It definitely is attached cause we have heated space connecting it yea. The old house or the previous house where the pool is is the location where the part of the house was as well as a walkway and the air conditioning units so part of that space was previously part of the house so the proposed pool we have it located so that it is conforming to side yard. The property next door there’s a row of evergreens privacy hedging that was put in by Mr. Casola years ago so that’s protecting privacy and the non-turf buffer was put in when original permits were obtained from Trustees for the bulkhead replacement so what he’s asking for we thought was reasonable the house is not particularly large but it does accommodate you know two teenagers or perspective teenagers what is it they’re 13 now. I’ve known them since his children were infants so just a normal sized house really comparable to the other homes in the neighborhood. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Gerry any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well I’m back to the side yard situation again and of course it affects the lot coverage in this particular case. Can you reduce the pool to I’m just throwing this out to you I’m only one member of this Board to like 18 by 36 which would give us more side yard less lot coverage, less water. PAT MOORE : Is that alright? Alright. MEMBER GEOHRINGER : Anybody have any objections to that? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : 16 by 32? PAT MOORE : 18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : 18 by 36 MEMBER SCHNEIDER : 18 BY 36 ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : This is a liner pool Mr. Casola? No it’s a cement pool so I mean literally almost anything can be built but okay. PAT MOORE : 18 would move the pool into the we have a fifteen foot setback right now from the garage so it would push us a little bit into that area. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea but 10 foot setback. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : To the pool. PAT MOORE : Oh yea yea yea but right now we have a 15 foot to the existing garage. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What I’m looking for is 12 okay so that if you need to get to that bulkhead again for any particular reason you can. MEMBER HORNING : Can you compute what the lot coverage would be Pat? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well she’ll give it to us. You want the get the surveyor to give it to PAT MOORE : I think that’s preferably a good idea have the surveyor put it on so he gives us the lot coverage or you can figure it out because it’s up to you what would you prefer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea. PAT MOORE : Surveyor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea. MEMBER DANTES : Gerry what I understand the 18 by why the 36 cause I’m just looking at I mean you say MEMBER HORNING : Reduce lot coverage. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Reduce lot coverage. MEMBER DANTES : Okay. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Do you know what the lot coverage was of the previous dwelling? PAT MOORE : I don’t know that I remember that off the top of my head. It was I think we were granted the lot coverage originally from the original house. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Before it was demo’d. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yea before demo. I’m trying to remember what the lot coverage was of the house. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Did you use the same surveyor? PAT MOORE : Yea. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Then Mr. Metzger might have that he might be able to calculate that for you. That would help. PAT MOORE : Okay let me see if I have I have the old survey. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh you have the old survey there? PAT MOORE : Yea but it doesn’t have lot coverage. MEMBER DANTES : Does it have the setback from the bulkhead. PAT MOORE : Oh yea it has the bulkhead setback 60. MEMBER DANTES : Can you submit a copy of that survey? PAT MOORE : Sure I think you have it in your pile don’t you? MEMBER DANTES : Of the old one? PAT MOORE : Yea. MEMBER DANTES : I think I saw it. PAT MOORE : You think you saw it or you don’t? MEMBER DANTES : I don’t think I did. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I don’t think I saw it. PAT MOORE : Alright I’ll get it to you. I have it here so you want me to give it to you with the revised or do you want it now? It doesn’t matter to me. This is the one that’s from April of 2013 oh this is the one that had the wood deck that’s why I thought you had it. It has the wood deck that was along the top of the bank. If Vicki wants to make copies I can MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What I would like to see is Mr. Metzger the same surveyor then he would be able to calculate what that PAT MOORE : What the lot coverage was on this one. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : the lot coverage was then okay and submit that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Was there a garage on that house? PAT MOORE : No. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay so lot coverage. PAT MOORE : Oh yea definitely. Yea the old house was 25 by 49.9 or 25.8 by 49.9 so MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I’d like to thank you for your cooperation. Can you make a copy of that for us BOARD ASSISTANT : The Pre Co? PAT MOORE : No the old survey. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Eric you have any other questions? MEMBER DANTES : No that was my only question. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well we have to address the LWRP. I know it’s consistent but they want a require a pool de-watering well. Show that on the survey. PAT MOORE : Well can you just put it as a condition? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Sure. MEMBER HORNING : We often do which is one of our three standards. PAT MOORE : Yea that’s cause then I can let the engineers decide where it’s going to go. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And where the equipment’s going to go. MEMBER HORNING : Sound deadening equipment as a condition. PAT MOORE : You want me to do that now of this survey? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No well we’re going to condition it alright? PAT MOORE : Fine. MEMBER HORNING : The screening is already taken care of. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Oh yea the screening is there. Okay so I’m going to just going to repeat what you want just to make sure. Lot coverage of original structures, pool 18 by 36 with minimum 12 foot setback. MEMBER SCNEIDER : Side yard yep. PAT MOORE : Side yard yea and then the MEMBER SCNEIDER : Show I guess the de-watering. PAT MOORE : Well do you want me to show it now or do you want me to wait? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Or we can just condition it I guess. PAT MOORE : As a condition right? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I guess yea. PAT MOORE : It’s okay with me well they have to show it to the Trustees anyway. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So you might as well put it on. PAT MOORE : I’ll put it on now. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Have to show your drywells and everything. PAT MOORE : I have the drywells there that’s why MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We don’t know if the drywells from the house or drywells for the pool so you’re better off dedicating one for the pool so that we have it cause that drywell is usually bigger than what you have coming off the house. That’s if you actually have to de-water the pool which I’m not a pool manufacturer but what they do every couple of years is they re- diamond dust the cement pool so they take the water out so you have a de-watering drywell to take the water out. It’s not a fast situation. It’s a rather slow process that they do and so you know so that I mean that’s the purpose of MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Does anybody in the audience like to address this application? I see no. So PAT MOORE : We have a question for you. If the pool equipment is put in the side yard next to the proposed garage and it’s in a pit is that a problem cause we’re trying to make a clear path you know. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No as long as it has a cement cover over it you know. They usually put a separate pool cover over it so you can just take that off but it’s still in the pit so I don’t see any problem as long as it’s drive over. PAT MOORE : Okay I didn’t want to have something come up MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It might not have to be cement but I guess if it’s drive able or something. PAT MOORE : Well yea you’d have to MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Metal cover I don’t know. PAT MOORE : Yea I just want to make sure that that’s cause we’re trying to keep it clear when he said where he would think about putting the pool equipment I just want to make sure that we don’t have anything that’s gonna be in the way. I mean if an emergency truck comes through they’re going to take it that’s alright but it’s really the for a bulkhead repairs or activity that might be on the waterfront. I think that’s it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We need to have your name on the record please thank you. PETER CASOLA : Peter Casola. There were five houses that replaced (inaudible) it was all from the beach and the association let us store the material up on the beach low tide they would work off of. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Let’s hope we don’t have another storm like that for another sixty years. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Why don’t we just adjourn it to the Special. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea adjourn this to the Special so you can give us everything. Thank you. So you’re making a motion. MEMBER SCNEIDER : Yea. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I’ll second that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GEOHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6878 – WALTER and BARBARA FITZGERALD BOARD ASSISTANT – The next hearing before the Board is for Walter and Barbara Fitzgerald #6878 request for variance from Article III Code Section 280-15F and the Building Inspector’s October 27, 2014 renewed June 16, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit for an accessory in-ground swimming pool, at proposed location other than the code required rear yard or front yard for waterfront property, located at 8915 Soundview Ave (adj. to Great Pond) in Southold. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Dave Chicanowicz from Creative Environmental Designs representing the clients. As you can see it’s a very challenging property. We entertained originally from past surveys and past sketches putting the pool on the water side on the driveway waterside of the house which would in trying to get it back further which and trying to get it back far enough to make it a rear yard. That just didn’t work between the DEC setbacks that were already stamped and sealed and Trustees issues we were kind of forced to put it as the only spot where we have it presented to you at this time. And you can also see this kind of weird shape swimming pool this obviously is not going to be a vinyl pool. It will be a gunite pool and it will have some a little unique line to it so that it fits the setbacks from the septic as is. We entertain looking to move the septic and we had no wiggle room in the septic so we kind of went through all of the if and buts or maybes and this was what we proposed to be the best possible location pending your approval. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That’s a true free flow. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Yes. So here we are. Any questions I can answer you I’d be happy to. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We have a letter from the LWRP saying your project is consistent. I don’t know if you have a copy of that. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : I do now yes thanks Vicki. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Any questions George? MEMBER HORNING : Not at the moment. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Gerry any questions? ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I spent some time walking around this beautiful property. I was telling the applicant’s agent for that situation and I can see some of the situations that he was dealing with in this and therefore I have no questions. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : My only question was have you looked at the LWRP recommendation about a 50 foot natural vegetative buffer? DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Natural 50 foot I saw that on the recommendations? MEMBER DANTES : Would you be willing to DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Yea that’s not an issue. I mean actually the client and I have already talked about making a nice buffer and natural buffer would be perfect. That’s all consistent with what we’re planning on doing so that’s not a problem at all. MEMBER DANTES : Great thanks. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Let’s see anyone in the audience. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : This might be one of the quickest one we’ve had. Look at the time it took you to put this thing together and you know we could of spent an hour on this but DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Come on you have nothing else to say come on. MEMBER DANTES : Well it makes it easier when it’s well put together packet and when you don’t really have any other choices. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : That was our biggest problem and again we reviewed this and reviewed it I don’t know how many times we had the surveyor back and had Rob Herman is helping me with the DEC final permits and all that. We entertained probably half a dozen different possibilities and just none of them came close. This was the only one that came as close as we can get and after going with the clients it was like I know you wanted it on the waterside but that’s just not going to happen so then was like alright from this pool location they’ll get a peek a boo view of the water so and they’re clear on that so you know I was like alright that’s the best we can do. Let’s try for that and here we are. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I make a motion to close this hearing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : All in favor? ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6882 – ANTHONY and LISA SANNINO BOARD ASSISTANT – The next case before the Board is for Anthony and Lisa Sannino #6882. Request for variance under Article III Code Section 280-13A(4) and the Building Inspector’s June 17, 2015 amended June 23, 2015 Notice of Disapproval for a building permit for construction of a winery/tasting room at 1) winery located on a parcel less than the code required minimum of at least 10 acres devoted to vineyard or other agricultural purposes located at 15975 CR 48 (aka Middle Rd) and 7490 Alvah’s Lane in Cutchogue. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay the applicant had made a request for an adjournment. I make a motion to adjourn this hearing to November 5 th. Do I have a second? MEMBER GEOHRINGER : Second. BOARD ASSISTANT : What time? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What’d we say 9:30. November 5 th 9:30. If you’d like to submit some letters absolutely. (Someone in audience speaking asking questions) BOARD ASSISTANT : It’ll be in the paper. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It will be in the newspaper. It’ll be on November 5 th at 9:30 am. Yea we voted didn’t we. All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6881 – SUSAN CACCHIOLI BOARD ASSISTANT : The next hearing before the Board is for Susan Cacchioli #6881. Request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s June 12, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit for a second story addition/alterations to existing single family dwelling and legalize “as built” deck addition and “as built” accessory deck, at 1) addition and “as built” deck addition less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) addition and “as built” deck addition less than the code required total side yard setbacks of 25 feet, 3) “as built” accessory deck less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 5 feet, located at 1040 Holbrook Lane (adj. to West Branch of Mattituck Creek) in Mattituck. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is someone here to represent this application? Okay you’re on. MR. BARRATT : Good afternoon. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Good afternoon. Mr. Barratt we have a few correspondences here. One is from the LWRP and one is from the Town Office of the Engineer addressing Chapter 236 of the Town Code. Do you have copies of those? MR. BARRATT : Are you talking about these green? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No I am not. We have the LWRP and we have something from the Town Engineer with respect to drainage. MR. BARRATT : No I haven’t seen those. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay would you like to come up and we’ll give you copies? MR. BARRATT : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And we’ll take your green cards too. Those are for you if you want to go back those are your copies. Why don’t you go back to the podium so we can continue the discussion? Want to take a look at the LWRP first off. It reads consistent with the additions and ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting alterations to the dwelling. However it reads inconsistent with the setbacks specifically to the decks. I see that you’ve submitted amended plans showing the decks being cut back and reduced in size. MR. BARRATT : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So I think that would suffice with the LWRP correct? And the Town Engineers report about drainage on this site they’re requesting a storm water management plan okay. We’re going to condition the application to that respect as well. Is there anything else you would like to say about this application? MR. BARRATT : No what so ever. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No what so ever okay. Gerry do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Not particularly at this time. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay Eric do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : Yea I was hoping you’d talk about the decks just go over how they were built or MR. BARRATT : I can’t hear a word you’re saying sir. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Why don’t you come up here sir and MEMBER DANTES : Tell me about the decks. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : He can use my mic. Come on up here use my mic. You know it’s the fans and everything too. Can you get to this here close enough? Mr. Barratt use this one here. MR. BARRATT : Real long time but it’s quite a while since I addressed this committee. You changed your procedure. When I came the last time you had a discussion amongst yourselves to which I listened and then you opened it up to the general public and then when they had finished you said not you but the lady I think was here at those times she said do you have anything to add. So I guess did you go through the acknowledgement of the absence of any members of the general public? I’m a little bit confused here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No because we wanted to hear your testimony first. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea we want to know if you want to tell us about your application. What’s going on, what you’ve done, what you know the Notice of Disapproval and how you’re fixing things. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MR. BARRATT : Yea okay. I don’t want to volunteer it you’re inviting me to volunteer some information beyond what you have. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : If you have more information by all means give it to us something to support your application. MR. BARRATT : Well let me start. First of all the current owners of the house did not build the house. They’ve only lived in the house for seventeen years. The house was built quite a few years before that and it in turn replaced the original house which was down near the water but when that house was condemned as I understand it the Board of Trustees asked for the new property to be built much further north up the site. The site is tapered and in order to keep the in order to be able to take the house back they had to come to you for relief because these are very very shallow or narrow side setbacks. They’re only 5.3 feet or so. Now what I can say about the side setbacks is the current owner at least and it’s recognized on this new survey did put down hard top etc. so that it water would run down it but you’re right when you say there aren’t any drains in that area and I suppose what we could do is add some dry wells here to perhaps help the situation. Anyway everything went fine after my client bought the house. They’ve lived in it part time for seventeen years and they’re very happy. The problem they have along with many other families is the family grows up, they have grandchildren. They now have got four grandchildren and they want to be able to not just come out for the day but sleep overnight. Now this house has two incredibly small cells or bedrooms on the second floor. They’re (inaudible away from mic) there’s just about room in both rooms to put a bed but hardly anything more so they asked me to come in at least and look it over and what I said was we could extend the rear half of the house to the current walls without it changing the footprint or changing the runoff or anything like that and that would give them a larger plan in each plan area in each of the two bedrooms but the problem we immediately encounter and Mike Verity was very positive about explaining this to me we cannot have a bedroom with a ceiling like this that comes down to three feet even though I live in a three thousand square foot home and I have bedrooms that have ceilings that come down cause it’s dormers so anyway I said okay I said if I can’t have a dormer arrangement then what I’ll do is I’ll raise the roof and of course immediately we did that. The ZBA explained informally that that would require coming to see you because even though the new roof is only twenty five feet or so well inside the building limits the fact that it is a change to a house that’s on a non-conforming lot we must come here and get your approval to raise the roof. Now as a result of getting the drawing done I realize of course the setbacks on these two decks were incorrect actually you didn’t notice it but the coverage is also in excess of twenty percent so I arbitrarily reduced everything and I take I told the owner there is no way they’ll let you do anything unless you make the deck smaller so they’ve agreed to do that. I as an engineer I don’t think we’re doing ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting anything that really causes an environmental impact as such other than the runoff could be an issue but that was an issue that was already there and that’s about all I can say. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well the runoff will be addressed you have to address that with the Town Engineer you know drainage plan and do you know what the proposed lot coverage will be once you’ve reduced the sizes of those two decks? MR. BARRATT : Nineteen percent. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : About nineteen percent? MR. BARRATT : That’s what I did. I cut it back to nineteen to give myself one percent well not a percent but you know for any tiny irregularities that are involved here in the actual construction. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay well it seems like you’re bringing the plan into more conformity the whole parcel that is. Is this a demolition? MR. BARRATT : No well we have to take the roof off the current it’s a collar beam type of roof. We have to take that off and go to a conventional roof with a steeper angle on it so I wondered about you know is it a demolition or not. I said no it’s really a modification because we’re not changing the foundations or the walls on which we’re working. We are changing the joint obviously. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You’re maintaining the first floor. MR. BARRATT : Yes here’s where the roof is now I apologize I’ve got a drawing on the podium there which shows this color it might help you’re welcomed to take this MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay we see that. Thanks. MR. BARRATT : You see it shows things up. Here’s the existing roof and this roof is here so all they could do is put a tiny pair of bedrooms inside this thing as though it was inside a (inaudible) and MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So you are reducing the sizes of the existing decks both of them MR. BARRATT : Yes sir. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : and they will MR. BARRATT : The yellow is what’s there right now and the blue is what I proposed. MEMBER SCHNEDIER : and those will have conforming side yard setbacks? ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MR. BARRATT : Yes sir I think so. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The accessory deck is what 5 feet? Okay so he’s proposing 8 feet on both sides and the proposed smaller deck that’s attached to the house has a fifteen foot and a ten foot side yard and that’s conforming both single and combined side yard. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And the building inspector is giving excuse me one second the building inspector is giving you a permit to redo the roof? MR. BARRATT : Well he if you permit it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : He said he’s redoing the roof. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Not he’s taking it off and he’s going to add like a second story. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea but I’m saying he’s getting a building permit as a matter of right for that. We’re not giving permission for that. BOARD ASSISTANT : He’s increasing the non-conformity Gerry by going up. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay so we’re dealing with that aspect of it also. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I’m talking about as of what he was saying he didn’t say that we were that he was I thought he was getting a building permit from the building inspector based upon the individual side yard as they exist today. Because of Walls we can’t do that so we have to issue a variance for him to be able to do that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Right. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Which immediately triggers 236 and that’s my understanding. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And you’re maintaining the existing side yard setbacks to the dwelling. MR. BARRATT : Yes sir. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay anybody else have any questions? So we’re going to use these plans that you submitted as an amended application. Right these two sheets. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We don’t have any real certification from him as per only verbal that it’s nineteen percent. He really should give us a letter indicating that you’ve eliminated the decks to a such a point although the house is probably within the same footprint but we know where we are nineteen percent I mean if you wouldn’t mind that. ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting MR. BARRATT : No I would be happy to do that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes that would be fine just put it on a letterhead. Now as far as you know we this is the same drawing this more modified here this shows sequence of events and what would MR. BARRATT : Yes I took that drawing MEMBER SCHNEIDER : This put in the file but this one is the one that we’re going to stamp as approved set of drawings. MR. BARRATT : (inaudible) came from the old drawing as it was. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That’s shown what you’ve done to bring it into more conformity. I have a stamp on this one right here. It’s signed and Mr. Barratt is a professional engineer that works just fine. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : All we need is the lot coverage. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea if you could submit in writing the lot coverage I think we’ll be good to go. So I’ll make a motion to adjourn it to the Special or wait to submit MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Close it subject to giving us the what ya call it MR. BARRATT : I’ll do that tomorrow. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Certified lot coverage. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Certified lot coverage. MR. BARRATT : You’re open tomorrow right? BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes we are or Tuesday Bob. MR. BARRATT : Yea okay I’ll get the letter done tomorrow and hand it in to you and hopefully you’ll stamp it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea you want it stamped too right Gerry the letter or MR. BARRATT : The letter I’ll stamp the letter and then she’ll stamp the letter received and then I can email it to the client. See they’re all in (inaudible) New York I think so you know almost like a different world. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Have you worked on any type of drainage plan yet? If you have any questions I suggest maybe talking to the town engineer about your site. And LWRP you don’t ?? September 3, 2015 Regular Meeting need any they’re not looking for any buffers or anything like that it’s just inconsistency with the decks so that’s all mitigated now correct? I make a motion to close subject to receipt of letter showing the lot coverage. MEMBER DANTES : Second. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ****************************************************************** (Whereupon, the September 3, 2015, Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals concluded at 2:19 P.M.) ?? September 3, 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. 4Signature : ' Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : September 14, 2015