Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/04/2016 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 February 4, 2016 9:35 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES— Member GERARD GOEHRINGER—Member (absent) GEORGE HORNING — Member KENNETH SCHNEIDER—Member VICKI TOTH — Board Assistant (absent) ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Clerk Typist STEPHEN KIELY—Assistant Town Attorney 1j February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting. • INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page 9300 Route 25, Inc. (Paul Pawlowski) # 6914 3—27 Uhleman Family 2012 Irrevocable Trust# 6916 27 - 31 Richard and Kathleen O'Toole# 6913 31 - 38 Stephen and Arda Haratunian # 6911 38- 53 Island Estate Group, LLC# 6918 53 - 71 Russell and Susan Hearn # 6915 - 72 - 77 Richard and Lisa Israel # 6917 77 81 Frank J. and Elizabeth G. Kelly# 6898 81 Donna Wexler and Rodney T. Quarty# 6920 82 - 84 Donna Wexler and Rodney T. Quarty# 6919 84 - 87 Lisa Gillooly# 6922 87 - 106 21 February 4, 2016 Regular'Meeting HEARING #6914—9300 ROUTE 25, INC. (PAUL PAWLOWSKI) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for 9300 Route 25 Inc. Pawlowski #.6914. This is a request for Special Exception per Article III Code Section 280- _ 136(7), the applicant is requesting permission to construct an annual membership club located at 9300 Main Rd (aka NYS Route 25) in Mattituck. So the hearing will now be opened and let's see what I have here. Before we begin taking testimony from the applicant who will present who's here to represent? Mr. Pawlowski okay hi. Before you come to the mic and begin to state your case I do want to just let the audience know because I'm sure most of you are here for this application. How many of you are here for that application? Okay wow gee how do figured that out pretty quickly. Alright so let me explain today we don't make decisions. The public hearings are fact finding so what we do during this period is hear from the applicant who makes their particular appeal to the Board and describes the reasons why they feel it should be granted. The public then chimes in we'll ask for your comments and you'll let us know what you think about it either favorable, unfavorable or anything in between. We don't make a decision today in fact we will be adjourning after today's hearing as I explained through the SEQRA process because this application requires site plan approval and the Planning Board has requested to be the lead agency in conducting a SEQRA review which is an environmental impact review essentially so once they make their determination we'll pick this back up probably with another final hearing and then we can make a determination. So let's see is there anything else I want to mention ah one other thing. The procedural way this unfolds is that any of you who wish to make comments must make them to the Board. You're not to go questioning the applicant and they're not going like question you and respond. You address everything to our Board because you are a part of our public record. If you have questions and we can't answer them then we can ask the applicant to answer them so that's the way we'll proceed. I would ask that you keep your comments specific and that you try not to be repetitive. If someone you know if,there's several people in the audience who agree with the statement that's being made I'll ask for a show of.hands and we can reflect that in the record rather than having you repeat the thing again and again. Would you please come forward and state your name for the record. Hi Paul before we get started we need a green card for you for our office there was something missing. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Oh I got them all in my truck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you what no I don't want to hold this up just as soon as we're done would you just go out and get them and bring them in? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely. 3 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please proceed enter your name into the record please. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Good morning Paul Pawlowski on, behalf of Sports East. Thanks for your time this morning. I want to start out by discussing the partnership that has been created behind, Sports East. It's combined of the Pawlowski family, the Marsh 'family and the Slovak family. This is.important because our partnership is willing, able and has the means-to get this project done. It's a large project for our community and we're'fully dedicated as three Southold town families to do this.'It's inipor-tant because we're not just some people coming in to put up this sports facility. We live here our-children will use this facility, our family members will use this'facility and_ our friends in other communities will use this facility: I think that's a' key ingredient because all three families have nothing but respect for this community. What we're proposing to build is a private sports club on an annual membership basis.The sports club I'll go over what's going to be included in this'sports club. On'the exterior we've proposed to do one synthetic sport field;'a multi sports field. There's no synthetic sports field-like thaton the north fork'as of yet and this will allow multiple sports to be played on year round weather permitting. We're also proposing to 'do exterior tennis courts, a few exterior pickle ball courts and that's mainly it on the exterior-of this sports facility. On the interior we're proposing to do four indoor tennis courts, one indoor pretty close to Olympic size swimming pool, two batting cages, an indoor multi-sport synthetic field as well, a gym, a few yoga or spin rooms, his an'd her locker rooms and a basketball court as well. The main goal here is to give the north fork an indoor sports opportunity that we do not have yet so'that's basically what we're proposing as far as what's on the exterior and within the facility of Sports East. The proposed site plan, has been given a lot of thought for everyone. For people driving by for people that live immediately and again I emphasize this is mainly an indoor sports facility. Anything on the outdoor on the exterior would be' close to the main road you know one it offers some curb appeal just you know being able to pass by a town seeing a sports field I think we're very sports orientated town as it is and if any noises come from those sports they're close-to the main road versus in the rear or closer to the residential properties surrounding this specific property: The property is'21 acres. 'We looked to only utilize all things considered parking, the synthetic fields, the tennis courts, the building itself no 'more than 6 to 7 acres which roughly is 30, 33 percent'of the property. We will not need any variance if approved. We'will have more than triple the side yard setbacks. We will be able to keep the large mature trees on all four side of the property including the main road to keep the scenic view as you're driving by pretty;much as it stands today and especially on the three sides that border some residential properties. We will have a very large non disturbance area. We'll work with Planning Board'if approved to make sure that happens. So in essence this facility we feel will be private 'and hidden. This property is large enough to support two entrances one main entrance closer to the west end of the property and' `' one exit only to the east side. This will help with traffic flow. We also feel we can work with the 4 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting DOT and the Planning Board to come up with a turning lane which will improve the situation there as it stands even without the sports facility. The building itself is a simple•structure. It'll look like many of the north fork barns that stand here today. Overall the goal is to achieve a site plan that is safe, has the parking it needs, can fit what we're asking for but at the same time definitely keep an account for`everyone that drives by or lives nearby. How does the ZBA come to its decision or part of that comes from what is best for the community, it's impact on health, safety, welfare, adverse impacts, ground water affects, and does it fit within the code and obviously there's many other things that help make up your decision but I'm goingto touch on a•few of those. The health of the community, I feel this hits the very core of health for our community. It's interesting I think that's the whole reason that this is being proposed•today. It'll improve the health of literally each person that joins. It will also improve the health of our community by offering jobs and increase tax revenue. Welfare, we will improve the welfare of all residents of Southold that would like to join this club just by giving them a healthy choice of recreation. Safety and traffic, again this property supports two entrances which and the ability of a turning lane and we will work with DOT and Planning Board to make sure that safety aspects of this proper sidewalks, proper lighting, entrance, egress, fire safety we have a sized property that we'll be able to you know meet every demand when it comes to safety just because this is a large piece of property. We can afford to do that can afford to have proper so firetrucks can get in and out. Adverse impacts, again this is a 21 acre site. We're looking to utilize all and even with landscaping everything six to seven acres again makes,up roughly thirty percent of the property. We're not going to have the need for much irrigation, much fertilizer you know we are going to build this with only the property we need to do. We want to get the mature trees tight to the building. We want to keep them tight to the synthetic fields and we want to make this a maintenance free facility as well so adverse impacts I think are mitigated by that'aspect compared to if we were allowed to do &twelve, thirteen lot subdivision which is what we can pull off there if we had to go that route and again that's you know a lot more fertilizer, a lot more clearing so the adverse impact we think is mitigated with this proposed plan it does fit within code from what I've read and what I know about the code this will be a private sports facility that needs no variance with the potential Special Exception it fits within code and we will not it'll fit he height requirements, it'll fit the size, it'll fit every requirement that the Planning Board asked for this is already had the Special Exception we could meet. In closing as a resident of this town, as a parent of this town we look to have your support. We look for the communities support. We wouldn't be doing this or even proposing it if we didn't feel that there's a serious need for it. I hope this happens for us. Forget about us as the owners or the partners. If somebody else was proposing this I would definitely be behind it. I thank you for your time and any questions I'd be happy to answer. 5 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I -do have a couple of quick questions. First Of all we received -a request which•we couldn't,approve.-I don't know if you've all seen this. It's been in the papers •,so you,likely have but I'd be happy to pass this around if anybody wants.to have a quick look . this •is a conceptual 'rendering of both the wooded buffers 'I. presume that the applicant is proposing to maintain that's already there and where the actual building would be cited. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : I have some here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN": Oh:okaylpass around a couple of them that's'fine. On the plans that you,submitted you know just a conceptual layout of the actual interior of the building on the second floor'you have•a kitchen .included is-that for'staff or is that going to be a snack bar, a restaurant or-something? • " ' ' PAUL PAWLOWSKI.: No restaurant. It's basically going to be a foodservice for our members you - know just as if.you know.a golf club has some food service we propose to have-a food service for the members that go there. It's not you can't come in.and get•a coffee and run,you have to ' be a member so it's mainly a,membership food service an amenity; CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What kind of food are you contemplating? PAUL-PAWLOWSKI : You know water, Gatorade's; packaged protein bars things of that nature. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh just snacks. PAUL PAWLOWSKI :.Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. •< PAUL PAWLOWKSI :-We're not proposing you know to sell dinners or anything'like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN And 'what about can you give me approximate dimensions,of the proposed,wooded buffers that,you're intending to leave? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Two hundred feet roughly 194 to 205 feet'on the east and west side. On the let me just look at my site plan from the southerly poirit.of'the building back to the nearest neighbor it's closely to 480 feet. The building from the road would be close to 300 feet. The building itself we're proposing is roughly i50 by 500 feet and the need for-such a large'building is. obviously the size of the sports that would be in there-. The tennis courts, the basketball courts and such. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you thought-about hours of operation? February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes I was asked that at.the Planning Board but you know we're going to really try and cater to the demands of somebody that needs to go so roughly you know 5:30 a.m. till 9"30, 10 o'clock at night. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And although site plan will address this I just want to also ask you about any plans for outdoor evening activities. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No. We're not proposing any sort of lighting besides what's needed for the parking lot so no not at all. That's a big aspect that I hope everyone considers is yes there's a few outdoor activities no different than some of the ones that already happen with in our town but this is we need an indoor sports facility and that's what our goal is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do want to enter into the record just a couple of comments from the Planning Board and then see if other Board members have any questions for you at this time. In general the Planning again anything in our file by the way is public information through FOIL. In other words if there's anything in it you would like to see correspondence or site plans or whatever details we have all you need to do is come to our office and request a FOIL form Freedom of Information Act form, fill it out and then you could look at our original file you know in our office and if you want to make copies you have to just pay for the Xerox our staff would be happy to do that for you. The Planning Board requested lead agency because they're indicating that although this generally fits this proposed use appears to be initially consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. It is a large project for this town and potential adverse impacts relating to the development and operation of this site must be examined to insure they do not degrade the health safety and welfare of the residents and neighbors. The potential adverse impacts including but not limited to traffic, noise and ground water pollution must be investigated to determine their significance and whether additional steps can be taken to mitigate or remove the impacts entirely. Then they're talking about a traffic impact study and so on. So I simply wanted you to understand more thoroughly what the SEQRA process will do and that the Planning Board will be doing that for the community. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Can I touch on that process really quick? CHAIRPERSON'WEISMAN : Sure. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : I've been involved in many site plans before and obviously what you have to do with most site plans so we look forward to that review considering the size of this project. We are definitely going to be doing a traffic count trip studies as owners and partners we're more than willing on the septic end of things to put in a newer style septic system. We'll work with the Department of Health to do so. We do not necessarily need a traditional septic system so we definitely look forward to that opportunity to do something that's new. It won't be a 71 -,.February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting septic treatment plant because, we don't require that.for this .project even though it's a big project_septic wiseit's not:that big but we look forward'to probably being the first commercial or private club in this area to have a new septic system and I know there's a lot out there I can't give you an exact system at the moment but there's a lot happening and if this is approved I'm 'Sure over'the next year we can definitely accommodate a better more.state of the art septic treatment system for this project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you' Paul. One other thing just to clarify because I'm sure you're all familiar with the history of this property and that at one point a change of zone was being examined by the Town.Board and so on. A Special Exception Permit is'a request from an applicant to go ahead with the project that is already permitted`in the code in that 'zoned district but only upon review and approval,of the Board based on a set of standards which are in the code and I think Paul's already Mr. Pawlowski has already addressed some of those standards. They ,have.to do with the use will not prevent the, orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or, of properties in adjacent use districts. The use will not prevent the orderly-reasonable uses of permitted or legally established uses in the district where in the request use is located or if of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts then it goes on to examine the health, the safety and the welfare, the comfort, the convenience or the order of the Town will not be adversely affected. It, will be in harmony and promote the general purposes of Chapter 280-142. The use will be compatible with the surroundings and the character of the neighborhood. Allproposed structures shall be,readily accessible for fire, police protection and it shall comply with Chapter 236 the Storm Water.Management requirements. So those are the standards the Board will be looking at. If any of yo,u have any thoughts about any-of them you know that would be helpful to us to have in our record this morning if you want to address any of them. ,Does the Board have any other comments or questions at this point. MEMBER DANTES : How many members would you envision visiting the club on a day to day basis? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : On a day to day"just there could be anywhere from fifty to a hundred and fifty members on a day to day. I'm sorry for such a big spectrum but comparing to I'm you know a member at some local clubs different clubs golf clubs and sports clubs in Westhampton right around that number. ' • MEMBER DANTES : You plan on having.sports leagues? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Hopefully. I internally have private you know absolutely. MEMBER DANTES : So it would be for the members? 81 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken anything at this time? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Not at this time. MEMBER HORNING : Where would be the septic location? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Closer to the Main Rd. The goal is to consolidate all the since it's a large building you know 95% of it is open space to courts and basketball courts so upfront will be the reception and a bathrooms and stuff so it will if allowed we're going to propose to put it in the northeast corner of where the front corner of the building would be. MEMBER HORNING : How many total parking spaces are you PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Well let me just cause it's a specific number for what we're proposing and again this will be double checked by Planning Board if we get to that point but basically parking required is roughly 190 we're proposing roughly 224. Most of that could be potentially overflow where it's permeable surface if we get that you know that's really going to be up to the Planning Board to decide but again with this size property we have that ability to have proper parking. We're not in that position where we're going to need a variance for any more parking and at the,same time we don't want it to look like a runway so we want to there's a fine line between too little and too much so luckily we have the ability to do proper amount of parking. MEMBER HORNING :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we're about to hear from the public. Please state your name for the record. DENISE GEISS : My name is Denise Geiss and I live on Sigsbee Rd. This proposed sports complex , will definitely exponentially create more traffic in an already busy spot. Now I believe when I looked in the site plan and maybe you can just confirm this for me that anybody leaving the proposed sports complex is only supposed to make right turns is that I believe that's what it said somewhere in the site plan that they'll be only allowed right turns or am I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's probably going to that is what's being proposed now however that will await site plan approval and D.O.T. and a number of other steps before the traffic flow is finalized. DENISE GEISS : Right because my concern is really living on Sigsbee that if everybody which I understand that would be for safety reasons and that makes sense that you wouldn't try to make a left you know through traffic but my concern is there's a very short distance between 9J February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting the proposed sports complex and the light at Sigsbee Rd. so that, generally means that everybody going west will have to go east'in order to go west so that means you'eitherhave to go down Sigsbee which is a residential road and already very busy because of the traffic light you'd have to go down obviously Factory Ave. make a U-turn in Key Food,or you know just head somewhere east to go west is my concern and then my concern too is living on Sigsbee we used to have an arrow which would allow you at the light to make a left into Sigsbee if,you were going to Waldbaums you know where it is and they changed that but if you were making a left even with a turning lane going into the sports•complex I think it's going to be traffic is just going to be terrible because there's no way people are going to wait especially from Memorial. Day to Labor Day there's no way people are going to go okay yea i'll wait ten minutes to get into the parking lot so traffic is a really big concern for me on this proposed property because there's just so much traffic in that area already and then Paul said which I would just like to ask you he said that there would be no evening activities on the fields. Would there be early morning activities on the field is what I'd like to know. My concern is obviously noise because regardless even if it's closer to the'Main`Rd.'you're going to I from where I life I'can hear the A,h'en the yacht club when they play ball the yacht club.' can hear that so there would be no reason if it was early morning or obviously late afternoon that you wouldn't hear that so obviously the noise would be a concern for me for the outdoor fields but I do believe since there would be no evening hours'that I don't believe I think you said it wouldn't be'proposed lighting so that would be good cause'there wouldn't be evening. Also my concern with the indoor'pool is.whe're when the pool has to be drained for routine maintenance or other issues where that water would be going not obviously I would hope not just out the door you know into you know the proposed area I would hope there would be a place for thatand my next concern is the are the sports complex fees going to be now in stay cbn'duciVe to the middle class the average resident because even if they start reasonably and 'I know you only have,so much control over this but my concern is they're going to continue to creep up and then it will not be able to you know support itself.in the future and • MEMBER DANTES : I'm not sure if we have any control over his fees. • DENISE GEISS : Correct that's what I'm in a fact of. making a decision this is. my,concern. My concern is if it can't support itself what are we going to do with another empty building just like the one at Capital One so then entering Mattituck then we have a building on either side that is unused so that'is really my concern and I believe Paul said they're only using like thirty something percent of the property or whatever my request would be to put a covenant if you guys would consider putting a covenant on the what is considered the wooded piece of property for no additional buildings now or in the future and no additional parking so that would always stay a wooded area and it can't just as a oh the complex' is getting bigger now so ' - it can't just be built and built and built on that would be my concern because if that continues 10 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting then there would be no buffers and that would really be my problem and next question is does this Special Exception does it go with the property or with Mr. Pawlowski like does it stay with the property if my concern is there's no reason he really if he got this Special Exception that the property would then.be worth more and that he couldn't what would stop him from selling it and making a profit rather than building his sports complex? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Special Exceptions run with the land. DENISE,GEISS : Okay so there really is no I'm not saying he is I'm just saying there is no reason he really couldn't say okay now I have a Special Exception and now I can sell the property for more money than I paid for it and continue on that's really my concern is what would you know what would stop him from doing that and I know you only have so much concern but you know control over that too but that's another question of my seeing how things have played out on this piece of property. I just wouldn't want that to happen. Then I also ask that maybe so we know cause I don't know if we have do you guys have a good written plan about how much they think this project is going to cost to run every year so we know if it can support itself? Is that something that you look at before you consider? . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. The business model is up to the applicant. We only determine whether the use is compatible with the surrounding' 'areas and if there are any potential adverse impacts can we find ways to mitigate them so that they're not adverse impacts. Those are essentially I read you the standards those are the things we address. DENISE GEISS : Right so I would wonder if you would consider speaking just one second I'm sorry I would wonder if you would consider then making Mr. Pawlowski put up some kind of bond that if this did not if this went out of business if this could not support itself that he would have to pay to have this building destroyed and brought back to and the piece of property brought back to its original state. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We would not entertain that. DENISE GEISS : You couldn't do that? Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean the town generally supports business entrepreneurs and you know it's really up to that's matter or civil for civil matter this is not really something the Board can do. What we can do and what I think perhaps some of you who are also concerned about it in the audience is look at traffic impacts, we can look at buffers to make sure that those wooded the proposed wooded buffers are maintained, we can put conditions on Special Exception permits which would require the applicant to either put an easement in perpetuity on the property you know as a part of the Special in terms of the Special Exception and again the how many of you are concerned about traffic? How many of you are concerned about what 11 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting • happens with the water when thepool is-maintained? Alright we're going,to ask the applicant to address those concerns and also about the-buffer the wooded buffer. • DENISE GEISS : So you could put a covenant on that there would be no.additional buildings if you felt it was good you could put a covenant on it there would be no additional buildings? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know we have to ask Stephen I don't think so I'm sorry we can certainly put an easement in perpetuity on the wooded buffer on the,Site plan yes as part of the Special Exception if in,fact that. is.something that we feel is important to_maintain the residential quality of the surrounding use districts-to mitigate noise, to mitigate views and so on you know.of the building itself that is-definitely something the Board can implement because it fits within our standards of review.' • DENISE GEISS : And would you consider that cause that's my concern that this project if it does work it's,going to increase. • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN I: cannot'second guess how-'•this will play out. I don't,think it's reasonable for the Board to make comments at this'stage on what it's going'to'intend to do. We're here to listen to everyone's concerns and to take them into consideration so Paul if you would please address-the" issue ofearly hours of operation and noise and so on and then the how the pool is to be maintained and"the fee structure that you have in mind and cause I'm sure the community is also interested in whether or not,you will be able to afford to go to this place. Is that fair? Raise hands if you think that's a concern that you have. Okay so let's see what the applicant has to say about those. r' ,PAUL PAWLOWSKI,: Paul Pawlowski Sports East. So to answer some,of those questions as far as traffic goes'we're proposing two entrances. The one to the east would be right turn only. The one to the west would be a dual entrance so I understand that you don't want people making a right turn,and having to find a way to get west so that's really going td be dictated by-the D.O.T. and traffic studies. This day and age there's a lot more codes•and-people respect the safety a lot and the traffic a lot so and this is a very wide portion of the road so it's not just two you know head east only by any means but by allowing-two entrance one egress to the-east so definitely help mitigate any traffic concerns. The_pool itself will be if when leeching and new codes•you can't just stick a,hose-out the door..It'll have all the proper leeching fields underground drywells and if allowed by the Health Department we're_proposing to do a salt water pool not.a chlorinated pool. Day time hours it's our goal we're not going to have any lights so it's going,to be whenthelights out youknow when it's-daylight no one is going to be playing on there at 5 • a.m. Buffers we're proposing non-disturbance buffers and that's a.big difference between just a setback. We're going to more .than triple, quadruple the,setbacks SQ what that means is•a-non- distu,rbanc'e we can't touch it and the next developer can't touch it but there's not going to be 12 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting another developer this is you know I'm going to get on`one subject in a minute with that. Fees, this will be affordable. We're going to be able to tier our you know tier our fees. We're-going to have members that maybe only want a pool so they're only going to pay for a membership for a pool membership or maybe just a basketball so we realize we can't say hey'it's one fee take it or leave it so that allows us the ability to make it affordable to all classes and number one thing and this is probably actually the only thing that bothers me when I hear it everything I,'ve proposed to date for this property and I hate even saying I now because it is three families involved now but proposal one workforce housing, if anyone does a business study that is not the greatest business plan so my intentions with that was not in my.best interest. Proposal two was to donate seventeen acres and do something along the Main Rd. with workforce housing that again is not in the best financial interest and proposal three selfishly is something that I would love for my family and if anyone does the numbers on athletic private club it's not every day that you have people who are willing and able and the means to do it and I think (inaudible) more there's the means to do it. Our families have the means to•do this fortunately. We've definitely have run our numbers. We know it will sustain itself but to be honest even if it doesn't we're going to keep it thriving and actions speak louder than words. I'm an owner of Cedars Golf Club and by no means does that make money but it's a lot of fun and the reason I bring that up is because I'm going to have that in my family forever so and that's not a cheap endeavor every day or every week so I bring that up not to pat myself of the back but I agree we don't want to drive by and have a vacant building and in this case we would never. We're more than happy to bond the project so it's not just sitting there. If this is approved we're going to have it done in eight months past the planning aspect so the number one way to make money is a subdivision for me. I don't want to do that and I won't do it so that conversation with all due respect has to end anymore questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see who else in the audience. Please step forward and address the Board and state your name. SKIP GEHRING : Yes tell me if the microphone works. My name is Skip Gehring I live in New Suffolk Jackson St. in New Suffolk and what I just wanted to mention is that the facility what Paul and their group is proposing I built one in Nassau County exactly the same thing. On Merrick Ave. where the traffic is significantly more than what happens on 25 right by Eisenhower Park and number one relative to the traffic there's never been a problem because the traffic is not all at once all hundred cars coming in at once, all hundred cars leaving at the same time. Number two is relative to what the kids and the children need out here to do. The facility that I own is in Westbury and we have children coming from Shelter Island all the way into Westbury in order to be able to play in an indoor basketball court, to be able to play baseball at something similar to what Mr. Pawlowski is proposing having an indoor baseball field, indoor basketball courts and as a matter of fact some of the children are the people that 13 February 4, 2016 Regular-Meeting r ' are.here have come all the way into Westbury in-order to be, able to do something along this .line. Kids come to my house at night cause there's nothing to do. The,only way I coach, at Southold High School basketball,:coach. at Megan Mercy High,School basketball;and what I've done and I.have the same commitment_as-Mr.. Pawlowski-had in'terms of I paid $25,000 a year :to use Megan Mercy's Gym to just have an opengym so thatthe children can come in of all ages•to play basketball, to..just have a-place to run around at night,dark in the winter it gets dark at 4:30 in the afternoon and there's going to be.a strong benefit relative to that. I'm involved with the-Long Island.Hoops basketball league:the.closest thing you haveis Southampton youth center: As. far as the children and the adults being,able-,to-go, play basketball, .play tennis whatever they want to do along those lines the opportunity:for-the area to-grow a community to grow a bond amongst a community now you've got a place where alllhe kids from.different - towns are able to get-together. As a result of this thing by-having. this type of a facility what I had in Nassau we-actually brought teams over to Austria playing a basketball competition overseas where we gotten children-and kids at different ages fourteen to eighteen years old brought them overseas from all over Long Island to.be able to play ball and the comradery and the friendship of those boys Of all over Long Island and the..girls so all the issues that have been addressed shy of the pool-not having a pool our.address and jt's not the parking the.noise it's indoor the kids are very very you know very very respectful and as far as building a community you:kno.w the adverse things can be addressed and this is needed and the children are driving two hours on'a Sunday to.go:over into Westbury to get what's going to be able to.be'offered .,right here in town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN `. Thank you for your comments anyone else? Please come forward. JULIE AMPER : Hi my name is Julie Amper I live in Mattituck and- I am just wanting to find out while this issue is adjourned for the SEQRA report may people who were not able to make it today write to the Board with theircomments? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely as long as-this application remains open we can,receive written commentary at any time just e-mail it or bring it into the Zoning Board office and it will become part of our public record. SUSAN TOMIN : Hi I'm Susan Tomin. I live in the community. I also'have a CEO'of a not for profit • the guidance-center-which is-a lead agency for communities that-care and-we've mentioned the children and the members and in our community and our median income of about-$60,000 or so and'affordability'being:a question-and I think when we-make special exceptions,one of the things we would consideririg was the impact on- the'community and environmentally if our children can't participate and I'll tell you that in the surnmer•l run a summer camp that with .a youth bureau grant we have and this is a small youth bureau grant if it wasn't for volunteers February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting but no one is on a salary in our not for profit we have about sixty children coming for free.and wemay have to charge a little fee to keep it going but we have sixty children coming for two weeks for free that need something to do and we're dedicated just like this other gentleman just like I hear from Paul Pawlowski his dedication to community. I hear that.I saw that in the newspaper when he said he wanted to stress to the community this is something that .our community needs. It will touch on all different demographics and will improve the quality of health as it is the very essence of a healthy lifestyle and I couldn't agree more. When we don't have our children participating in community they feel it's actually a risk a I also am a prevention counselor I've been in this field since 1992 and I'm dedicated, I'm one of those members who give, give, give financially and of their time to prevent substance abuse issues in our community. This would be such a bonus to have in our community if Mr. Pawlowski is making a commitment to not for profit such as the guidance center or C.A.S.T. that the children that are of most need will be included in this project in some shape way or form that there be a special because if there isn't the environmental impact to the community is'neighborhood detachment. That's a real measured risk and that will cause children and community members to fall away and then that creates other risks that grow into very big negatives for our community including substance abuse. So I would I just I'm so grateful that if this is what he's proposing to work with all demographics, to be there for the children and those that are least able to probably afford to come to this beautiful sports complex that I this is something that our community definitely needs and I just wanted to say that. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. Let me ask you a general question. If `'you felt assured and this will have to be really something that Mr. Pawlowski has to consider as n entrepreneur'as a business man this is his business. People go into business generally to make profits, they can be reasonable profits if there's a benefit of not having excessive profits • but the point I'm making is if how many of you would support this kind of use on that property if you were assured in some way or another that in fact it would really be available to kids, to people with you know lesser income and so on as well as those with greater income? Can you just raise your hands please? Okay. I think that seeing thatthe vast majority of the audience's hands were raised that it's safe to say that the use itself is something the community believes is important, is necessary, is beneficial and the concern is will it be beneficial to everyone. Now perhaps you may want to address that but let's see we have one other person who wanted to ask-something. Please state your name. DORIS MCGREEVY : Doris McGreevy Mattituck. I had some questions for clarification because I only saw the picture in the newspaper and I haven't reviewed any of the materials but my questions are about the fields. As a former park district commissioner I have dealt with soccer and we have Strawberry Fields and we have Aldrich Lane Fields and the multi-use fields that they're planning I would like to know how many fields, how many soccer fields can be 15 February 4, 2016-Regular Meeting configured in.,that area and If so you know there's about-twenty five at ,a game how many _games are going on at.once an,d,would there in other words in Mattituck I:think there are three we can have-three games going-at'once and that increases.the parking and the maneuvering, kids coming-in.and out so I'm curious about that. I'd like some.clarification on,that-and for the • parking for-that amount number of people. .-. . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.I have here a proposed obviously this is subject to site plan but in fact if you want I can pass this around. Why don't you verbally answer that question Paul while you're up there and then address the fee thing because the outdoor stuff is basically parking, tennis courts and one field that's it. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Paul-Pawlowski Sports East again. We're proposing one synthetic sports field so that will be able to accommodate DORIS,MCGREEVY :What's the size?. - PAUL PAWLOWSKI ° It's standard size soccer ah lacrosse field and the goal is just one synthetic field that our members can train on even if it's raining out that's why we're going synthetic. That field-will have multiple sports lines but when I say'multiple1'm saying one field with the ability to play multiple sports on it at different times so it's not going to be more than one field and4e have mare than`adequate parking. As far as the fees likel said the`ability-to tier it for memberships will make it affbrdable'versus a big lump sum and as owners we're dedicated to an anonymous scholarship fund so what that means is we're going to every year whatever we could afford:and it will-be,a substantial amount of money I'm not going toput a.,number,on it but;we're going to put it,back into the community with,an anonymous fund for people who can't afford even the smallest tier- membership so that's back to the point we are Mattituck residents ourselves as owners and we definitely don't want to separate the community at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For those of us who don't really know hoW children's leagues ' -'operate cause we've heard a Iot•of discussion about kids coming into play basketball and soon 'hovv do you-envision that working'for the benefit of the community? " PAUL PAWLOWSKI..: Well similar to obviously it will be called a children's league but if you're a member of Sports East if,your parents you have a,family membership and, the kids want to partake in a soccer program or a basketball program or swimming-program we will have you know professionals in each area take on those let's call it leagues or programs within the membership basis. ' :CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN.: Okayso in other words the leagues would be formed by PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Membership. .6 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Members okay. PAUL PAWLOWKSI : Not run by members but formed by it has to be we can't this is private but that's here to welcome you know if we can you know cause there's people that don't ever want even use the swimming pool or visa versa or tennis court and we can tier it where it's an annual tennis membership or a pool membership or a synthetic field membership just so we can you know cater to everyone or as many people as we possibly can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Did you have more questions? DORIS MCGREEVY : Does that mean that outside leagues cannot use the field at any time? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : You have to be a member to use the field. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I'm hearing. DORIS MCGREEVY : Okay and do outside leagues have any part of the tier membership? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Nope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I presume if they want to join they can join and pay for it. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes they can definitely join and pay for it but you have to the big equation here is you definitely have to be a member or we will make that membership basis affordable. DORIS MCGREEVY : Okay and the other question is from the Park District's point of view we had lights installed later through a grant so even though the fields were unlit at a certain point there was a grant and the lights were put in at Aldrich. My concern is you know same thing might happen so there has to be some consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that can go through site plan and they will provide that will be something by the way when this application is going through the site plan review this will also will be a public participation. There will be hearings, you'll have an opportunity to address concerns of lighting and traffic impacts and parking and all of that kind of stuff. The Special Exception can also condition the permit just as we can with a buffer a wooded non-disturbance buffer in perpetuity. We can condition that this Special Exception be limited to hours of daylight operation on the outside obviously. DORIS MCGREEVY : I know and daylight is it depends CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it will be seasonal then I presume. '71 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting DORIS MCGREEVEY : Yea from the Park District's point•of view it's always it could be-sunrise, sunset and then that becomes ambiguous and then the police department usually asks us please give us a finite time. ' • • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : °Well we can do that. I mean you know we would obviously we do - not wish to be should this granted unreasonable restrictive ,on the operation-of a property owner okay and their business. That really does exceed the scope of our,jurisdiction as,far as I'm concerned but there are things we can do as I said to make sure that this works well with the surrounding residential properties. • - DORIS MCGREEVY :,Now the other question was and 1 is one exit and two-entrances? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't know yet. -DORIS MCGREEVY : You don't know. So you don't know really where the entrances Would be placed? . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a tentative proposal but again we're granting the-use if,that is the way it's perceived. The Planning Board has the jurisdiction to organize the traffic flow, ingress and egress through site plan approval:They address-issues of night lighting, security lighting, dark sky compliance and all of that sort of thing. We will only.put-conditions on a Special Exception if it's reasonable and operates within the standards I've-already read out to you. To protect the surrounding residential community we could certainly condition a buffer in perpetuity to ,respect-the-quiet. enjoyment of property we could something about hours of - operation and night lighting alright? Those are all reasonable. I can't tell you where the entrance and exits would be because.that's really part of SEQRA and part of D.O.T. and part of site plan approval. I will need by the way I know this is going around and -you're welcomed to take a look at the tentative site plan but that's my copy so I need it back. „DORIS MCGREEVY : Okay:the other question I was just thinking about the intense use of all these activities•at once and from the.,newspaper the on line newspaper it said that they would have indoor:tennis, an-indoor swimming pool, multi sports fields, a gym, rock wall, yoga,batting cages,•locker room, organic juice-bar or some sort'of food if this all happens at once usually it does in-the summer time especially when it's high usage I just I'm wondering about the traffic the intensity of usage with parking how it affects the parking because it's not unusual-to somebody running on a track and somebody playing baseball and somebody in the pool and it's summer time or any time you'll have all multi use and I'm thinking about that situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there are fire codes, life safety codes that restrict the number of occupants of any building. Site plan again will look at the parking yield depending on the intensity of use the size of the parcel itself which is very substantial. The lot coverage is minimal - 181 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting by the way with this proposal. In that zone district I think lot coverage is permitted at 30% and it's just a fraction so it's a big property, it's not going to be completely visible from the road you know I think that the use of all of those activities mostly would be indoors and I think those concerns can be very properly brought before the Planning Board should you continue to have them that's the place that they can be addressed. Are there other comments from the audience? Come to the podium please. MARGARET BROWN : I'm Margaret Brown from New Suffolk and I just have a question really and this•is about the pool. I'm wondering if the schools I'm beginning to think maybe not because they would need to be members but if there was some way for the schools to have swimming sports like water polo or water ballet or even racing whatever across the whole town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess Mr. Pawlowski has to answer that. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : How are you. Paul Pawlowski Sports East again you definitely have to stay within the code you do have to be a member. We're hoping to make it affordable enough for every child in every school on the North Fork could join. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could there be school memberships? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : I don't believe so by the code. Just to answer another question it's one main entrance and one egress only entrance. It will be dictated by the D.O.T. but normally from my experience the main entrance will be furthest away from the light the nearest traffic light and we're proposing the second egress exit just to mitigate any sort of traffic heading east. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. State your name. ROBERT HERNANDEZ : Good morning my, name is Robert Hernandez I live in Laurel. I'd like to commend Sports East. It's a great endeavor. Hindsight is always twenty-twenty and the wondering in my mind is why did they just go right to this plan instead of his'original first two and his logic spoke words in terms of crunching numbers saying right the first two probably didn't make sense for him so my wonder is why or what prompted it to now get to this point which is great and in hindsight probably makes more sense for him. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'll permit Mr. Pawlowski to answer that but I would like to let you-and others in the audience know that it's utterly irrelevant to what is before us. ROBERT HERNANDEZ : If it's intrusive by all means I don't need to 19 I • February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN.: I think he'd probably like to answer it because there's been an awful lot of conversation about his.'proposals and I think he's probably wants to maybe address it one more time and finally. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : So Paul Pawlowski Sports East. Option or proposal one was workforce housing. In order to get workforce housing approved on that site I would on needed Town Board approval and I was not able to get that approval. I spent a lot of money trying to get that • to happen. I would of loved for that to happen so but it wasn't going to get the support it needed. Proposal two same thing. I didn't get to proposal three by weighing-the options: I'm proposing proposal three because I definitely think it's in the best interest of the town instead. of the allowable by code you know.where I wouldn't need Town Board or.ZBA approval would be a subdivision. That's boring. ROBERT HERNANDEZ : Do you.have a:projected total number of membership? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN. : You have to address the Board:- ROBERT HERNANDEZ : Oh I'm sorry does he have a projected total number of membership as opposed to • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As a business model? ROBERT HERNANDEZ A daily usage? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No I do not. ROBERT HERNANDEZ : And finally will there be inter not intra club activities where for example a club from the west would have a tennis event with a club from this event this place. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No I don't believe"we're alldwed to dothat by code. - ROBERT"HERNANDEZ : Okay alright. , CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN": You'have to understand that there is a section of the code Stephen what is it,.280- what what's in definitions? A.T.A. KIELY : Four. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Four okay. There is;a definition of,what a private recreational facility is supposed to be. That is what we're looking at okay and it is limited. ,I mean it doesn't say it's not you know the universe want me to read it? Want me to read this? Alright these are Special Exceptions permitted uses in the zoned district, annual membership clubs, an accessory play grounds, beaches, swimming pools, tennis courts, recreational buildings and maintenance 20I February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting buildings, catering exclusively to members and their guests subject to the following: no building or part thereof for any parking or loading areas shall be located with 100 feet of any street line or within 50 feet of any lot line so that's a 100 foot and a 50 foot setback the applicant's proposing considerably greater than that. The total area covered by principal and accessory building shall not exceed 20% of the area of the lot. That is the case here it does not exceed 20% lot coverage. No such use shall occupy a lot with an area of less than three acres. So there's a three acre minimum to even consider granting this Special Exception. He's got twenty some acres here alright. Thank you very much Stephen. Anyone else who wants to address the Board please come forward. ROBERT HERNANDEZ : I thought that he mentioned it would be thirty to thirty three percent of the land use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe that the I believe that I misspoke that the lot coverage is usually twenty percent or thirty percent depending on the zone district and I may have A.T.A. KIELY : Inaudible ROBERT HERNANDEZ : That's just physical building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea fields and parking lots don't count in lot coverage. They're just surfaces structures is what we're talking about go ahead. LISA FOX : Hi my name is Lisa Fox. I'm born and raised in Mattituck and now living in Laurel with my husband and three children. First I'd just like to thank the families that I do know the Pawlowskis and the Slovaks for taking a risk on this venture. As we all know any business is always a risk and I think people need to keep that in mind that you know they are taking a risk on a business here and as someone who grew up in Mattituck there's not a lot for kids to do so I think that.,it's really important to keep in mind that we're giving the possibility of you know teenagers some good quality social interaction and that's really.important. We see on the cover of the Suffolk Timeslast week about the heroin epidemic. We see people all the time you know in trouble with alcohol and drugs and hopefully this is another outlet for you know our children to go there and be doing something constructive and healthy so I think that's a really important aspect of this. The gentleman before mentioned about sports complexes and parents driving their kids two hours. I am one of those parents who do that on a daily basis so the idea of not driving two of my children every Sunday to Selden to play Lacrosse. I have a son that plays baseball in Bellport. I'm constantly in my car driving them to all of these facilities to have something right here in the town that we live in I think is just going to be amazing and as the president of the PTA in Mattituck Cutchogue school district I know that so many parents feel the same way. We've actually had several families move out of the community because we 21 I February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting didn't have things like this. Neighbors of mine had‘a daughter who swam competitively and they moved to Smithtown .because they were getting up at 5 a.m. everyday driving their daughter to swimming and then bring her back to go to school every day. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could I ask you a question? Where you drive to take your kids for athletic activities are you a member?Are your children members? LISA FOX : No not membership but the baseball thing that it's you pay you know you can.pay as you go or you pay for a black of time. The other things actually some.of it through the school my daughter is on the high school Lacrosse team and in order for them to do a preseason training they're going to indoor facilities and I know that this will be a private•club but hopefully there is something that they can do with the local schools. Last year the high school Lacrosse team was asked to shovel the field at Cutchogue West because there was so much snow they couldn't start their season which was a little bit ridiculous but if thereis. a turf field in town maybe you know there's some type of something eventually that-can be worked out or you know if the children themselves are members that they could use that field and that would be a lot better than fifteen year old girls shoveling two feet of snow. So I just really would just like to address the traffic issue. We have definitely traffic issues with every new project that comes into town and I feel that most of us that live here don't get to benefit from any of that traffic. The wineries my husband and I have been once a year maybe we don't have time to you know to do that and hopefully some day we-will: We have bicycle tours driving up'and-down Peconic Bay Blvd. I can't even drive my kids to baseball practice in fear of hitting them with my SUV but I`feel that this is something it's a project that will definitely give value to those of us who actually are living inthis community and raising children-here and I;think•that's really important that we remember that people live here. We're not all tourists and that you know this is a real added value to you know to our lives. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. I do want to let the audience know we've been at this'for about an hour and 'ten fifteen minutes in the interest' that we have many, many other applications before this Board today I'd like people to make comments that are very brief and very specific and if you've already'heard those comments rnade please just don't repeat them because-they're in our record and we will consider them. MEMBER SCHNEIDER.: And they also have a chance in,Planning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea of course. This'is just the beginning okay we will have another hearing also you know as soon as we get the SEQRA determination from the Planning Board. So you have many opportunities and if you didn't get to say what you wanted to today and I'm not cutting it off right this second then certainly by all means write up anything you'd like and 22 1 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting submit it to the office..It'll be part of our record. The Board members get copies of every correspondence that's brought to the office. Just let this gentleman speak and then you go. JASON WALL : Good morning my name is Jason Wall I'm a resident in Mattituck also grew up here in Mattituck and graduated from Mattituck high school. I just want to start out by saying as owners of the property there whether it's Mr. Pawlowski and his partners or a different group there's obviously many possibilities for what that land could be used for and you know the fact that it's something that the community as a whole can benefit from people of all ages children and people of all different incomes I think is definitely important and it's a plus. Any business going in there will obviously have an impact on traffic, possibly the environment, noise things like that and it seems as though this group is you know made it or have dedicated themselves to making that impact at least on the environment I think as,minimal as possible by only using what they need you know thirty percent of the property I think that's important and you know again with traffic pretty much anything there is going to bring a little bit of extra traffic to the area. Understandably that's a concern the way that I think most indoor sports complexes work is that their peak season is actually in the winter months is when the most traffic would be there people going in and out and that's when I think traffic here on the North Fork and Southold Town is at its minimum so you know I think that's an important point to make. As someone who grew up here,who didn't have something like that available I would love for my children my three kids that we're raising here in Southold Town to be able to have that available to them and to all the children of the community and again people of all ages you know on a day like today for example you know rainy nasty day in February after school it'll be great to take the kids and go jump in the pool you know rather than sit around the house you know stay active I think overall you know the benefit this would be a healthier community in the end altogether and you know maybe help you know keep kids off of technology, ipads, iphones, video games things like that too so it's something that we don't have. It's a beautiful place to live. In the summer months when the weather is nicer there's plenty of things to do to get outside between you know parks and beaches and things like that but in the winter months really you know I think it's a little bit lacking so it'd be a nice change I think welcomed and I don't think I speak for myself here you know number of people that I've talked to about this everybody seems excited about the possibilities of it and I think really supports itself like I said I don't think I just speak for myself today. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON.WEISMAN : Thank you. JOE SLOVAK : Joe Slovak Sports East. I come at this from an educator's point of view. I've been a P.E. teacher for twenty years. I've been a coach for twenty five along with being a school teacher. I'm the head pro at Laurel Links Country Club and I coach a lot of the community sports and I'm a father of a fifteen year old and a soon to be thirteen year old. I will try not to be 23I February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting redundant but I've been 'practicing this for a:while so in front, of. all my students but I mean thank goodness for Paul to have him on my team and I appreciate-everyone's-comments for and not even against but just concerns and I think that makes us ,work through and 'find solutions but very quickly what motivates me iri this is and I'm all in'on this I mean I spoke to my wife and we made a commitment so there's no turning back. I will leave my teaching job and I won't be getting I won't be retiring I'll be leaving and rry full effort will be towards Sports East to make it something that lasts for generations so we're the Slovak's, the Pawlowski's, and the Marsh's are all in. I didn't know how I was going to present today whether I was going to do a power point or a slide show. I even thought about bringing in a teleprompter and stuff like that but I couldn't do'it but you' know I go to school every day and there's a boy Diego for instance and he doesn't speak English and he's a wonderful boy but he doesn't smile a lot. He's been in our school for a month and a'half arid 'when he walks into the gym his eyes light up and his smile goes from ear to ear and it's just a transformative nature of sport and recreation and all the boys and girls with Diego have something in common. Last night I went to the Michael Angelo's Pizza and I know a boy who works there who goes to school with my oldest daughter and he talked about his excitement about the upcoming JV baseball season. He came from southcentral Los Angeles and he moved here two years ago: He said -he didn't have-good grades, he didn't participate in school-sport's. He tried baseball last year for the first time. His grades have.gone up and his biggest challenge is to get a hit. He said he went hitless all Of last year so'those things inspire 'me and that's why I'm doing what I'm doing. You know you've heard'all the things about parent. I'm one of those parents'who do take our kids to sports up the island. We've gone to Brooklyn in a noreaster'last year. We Went to Manhattan for a soccer game and unfortunately rib one is able to come here cause we don't'have the facilities for that. Our mission statement here and I'rn'sorry to be 'rushing but I know we're pressed for time. Our mission here at Sports East is our mission is to serve our communities health, wellness and education needs in this all-encompassing state- Of the art sport facility while providing professional health, sport and education programs with certified and licensed professionals and instructors to persons of all ages. Paul 'mentioned a lot of the things that we are offering. I'd also like to say that we would love to have for those members a before care program where they can be dropped off at our facility, have recreation and then get to school. Afterwards come back we want to start a mentoring program with senior citizens and high school kids so they can get homework help, have recreation, go home having spent all that pent up energy and then it's just a healthy happy family relation. We of course we're going to have sports camp. Paul mentioned all those things. In Rockville Center someone asked about leagues, they have developed mental Ieagues.`We want our leagues to be-intrusive. The one good thing about Sports East is everybody is involved no cuts at school they'have to for budgetary reasons. We don't have to do that. Developmental leagues; Over forty leagues, over fifty leagues. I 'play 'hockey down in Greenport and it's a great stress reducer. Everybody leaves their careers, their 24 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting families at the door so to speak and we play for two hours. No one keeps scores and after it's done you feel fabulous. From the Massachusetts recreation and parks association I just like to quickly go over a few of the benefits of sport and recreation. Builds family unity, quick story we went skiing a few weeks ago my father in law, our families and my fifteen year old moody daughter they get moody now and then she didn't want to go skiing with us and her grandfather convinced her to go and we didn't see them for four or five hours and I can only imagine the value that conversation between grandpa and granddaughter. We want to be transgenerational. We want things to trickle down. Promotes a connected community, provides a safe place and forgive me some of this was said, offers a place for social interaction, healthy people are happy. people. Diminishes your changes of contracting diseases, lower health care cost, reduces crime, increases community pride and generally physically fit. I'd be remiss as an educator and as a parent not to bring up this and this was last week's Suffolk Times and this is alarming and,soon enough we're all going to be able to identify someone that we know who succumb to heroin overdose and my.daughters are at that critical stage and like it's been said before we need to give them it's incumbent upon us to give them something to do. I leave all this to you as far as the technical aspects to Paul but I know the good that,this can do to our community and really in closing well I'm sorry what I also like to say is andthis is from Human Capital Model from the design to move website one tenth likely to be obese this,is active children up to forty percent higher test scores, less smoking, drug use and pregnancy, fifteen percent more likely to go to college, seven to eight percent higher annual earnings, lower health care cost, more productive at work, reduce risk of heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes and one third the disability rate. Again this is inter-generational. Active parents active kids. In closing I know there are obstacles and we talked about them but no obstacle is big enough that we can't overcome it and I will,leave you all with a quote and that is "perfection is not attainable but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence" and that was from Vince Lombardi. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay no more than one or two more comments and Ms. Amper I think it would be advisable JULIE AMPER : I just have a question of your jurisdiction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. JULIE AMPER : Can you approve only part of this? For example I keep hearing how important the indoor recreation facility is could you and how the issues of you know noise and light and hours of use could you approve this for only the indoor and not for the fields and the outdoor tennis courts? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think so. 25 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting JULIE AMPER•: You can't. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because the use is the use and how that use is developed on the site is the jurisdiction of the Planning Board. JULIE AMPER:'Okay. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : .Two more comments this woman and if there's one other person who wishes to or unless Paul you .want to have the last word or I think perhaps you've said everything you need to say. Go ahead. ADRIAN WEBER : Hello I'm Adrian Weber. I am now returned to the North Fork to spend my senior years here and my children. I lived here for thirty or forty years. My husband was involved in the community as I was as well. I moved to Massachusetts and there was as Y and I did water aerobics three days'a week. I di'dn't have any back issues: I also can be proud of my mother who is gone she was 84.'She went to the Huntington y..She worked there and she was Y member senior of the'year because she swam. She swam every day. She learned how to dive-at age sixty. There is' a need:here-for the seniors. I'm almost eighty years old.-I go out to East Hampton Y when I can and the traffic isn't bad just to move and get my body going. There's a need for seniors. I know there's a need for children. My children I can understand that'I raised them here they didn't have that but they got involved with other•things: Thank God now they're fine. There's a need here for the seniors. There's'a need here-for the children. We know what the epidemic.is. We saw the paper last week. I'm jumping out of my seat here because -there's such a need.for'this here in this area. I go to other places I also was a Y member in North Carolina for eleven years. I helped our aerobics instructor with,the class. I go,to other places. You mean there's not a Y with the water on eve'ry"dam side you got the ocean, you've got the bay, you've got the sound sorry•I cursed but I-am so excited to have Mr. Paul and Mr. Joe and his other partner have- this happen because I've moved here"to be near my children and hopefully I,don',t.have to be a burden to them and I can stay healthy,by having water available to me for water aerobics,swimming and to address the people coming all at once I just needed an hour a week. I was in the parking lot at these other Y's I did my exercise for an hour I didn't come back for another two days. There's a constant move constant all the time with a facility like this and I just'hope and pray it happens. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. You get the last word. JIM CASEY : Jim Casey Mattituck. As a parent'ar d'grandparent of Mattituck and Southold town children and grandchildren I would like to also support this project as intergenerational as has been said. I think as someone who also took his children far far to the west to Philadelphia as a matter of fact in order to get these indoor outdoor activities I think it's great help to the health 26. February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting of the community, the health of the senior citizens I take the opportunity to have a pool which has been (inaudible) for the last ten or fifteen years whether we're going to have a YMCA out here or not it keeps on being rejected for various reasons I think this is a great opportunity which might not come again in my lifetime and I think it would be a great disservice to the community if this is not past. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON.WEISMAN : Thank you so much. We just ask the rest of the Board if at this point you have anything you wish to say or questions. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No we just wait for Planning Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright. So hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing subject to SEQRA determination by the Planning Board. We will adjourn without a date so we'll just leave it open until such time as we I'm not sure how long SEQRA is going to take. So rather than putting a date we'll just adjourn without a date. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Thank you all for your time. You've been very helpful. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#6916—UHLEMANN FAMILY 2012 IRREVOCABLE TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Uhlemann Family 2012 Irrevocable Trust # 6916. This is a request for a waiver of merger under Article II, Section 280- 10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM#1000-106-11-12 based on the Building Inspector's December 5, 2015 Notice of Disapproval which states a nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot held in common ownership until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule (minimum 40,000 square feet in this R-40 Residential 27 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting Zone District) this lot is merged with lots 1000-106-11-13, 14 & 16-located at 350 South Drive, 1260 Bayview Ave, 1310 Bayview Ave, and 1400 Bayview Ave in Mattituck. PAT MOORE : Good morning Patricia Moore on behalf of the Uhlemann Trust. Trustee Deborah Cassidy is here and this is again over the year it's amazing how many unique situations you're presented with as I am. This is a property where the Uhlemann family acquired these lots over the years from the.1940's. At different times it appears that Mollie Uhlemann acquired the property in '46 and '47 throughout the 40's. The family retained this property and it was passed on from Mollie Uhlemann through her estate to Ernst Uhlemann and his wife was Molly so again it's been in the family for a very long time. It is clea'r•'from the fact of the way that these properties have merged that there was never any intention to merge these parcels. They are bisected by a separate piece. They ,have different addresses, they have- different tax map numbers, they front one lot fronts Bayview Ave. another lot fronts the corner where the house is and then the southerly lot is fronts South Drive.,Their common course is a seventy five foot common property line which in some cases is a rear yard. In other cases it's a back yard it is a mess and should this lot not be unmerged I shudder to think the type of development that might be allowed here because it's quite frankly an unusual U-shape of a merger. I've given you the title searches. I've given you the facts. It's been a very delayed-hearing so I'm sure if you have questions I'd be happy to answer them but I believe that the application pretty much speaks for-itself. The survey is worth a thousand words and the survey shows how these 'properties really don't make sense as far as the intention behind merger of creating lots that are conforming. A merger of these properties would result in a completely nonconforming, configuration of properties. We have merged and choose to keep merged the parcels that come from the original subdivision map the parcels that are about forty by a hundred and fifty. Those • parcels would originally were created in an early subdivision and I think it's the subdivision.in the 1940's or 20's I don't have the map in front of me but in any 1926 thank you but that is not we have here the merger of what is reasonably sized properties that conform to the character of the neighborhood and conform to the size of the lots in the community. MEMBER HORNING : Pat can I ask you a question. You mention if they remained merged it would be uncharacteristic of the neighborhood? PAT MOORE : Yes because you'have a situation where I guess the only thing you could build is accessory-structures maybe-because they are, merged it's all would be one property-so you could put a very large garage on=lot what we show.at lot three tax map twelve and.possibly another garage on the combined tax map thirteen -and fourteen with a house that stays as is. That's certainlyrnotwhat.our zoning intends if anything you generally need a'variance to_put an accessory structure on -a separate lot.- In .this case because they're merged you could- put 281 - February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting accessory structures on parcels that to the world to the street looks like a separate parcel so it really would not make sense the redevelopment of this property as it is now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually you know you have of course obviously correct point I was 'going to ask you about this survey that we've got here from Woychuk because the lot I guess it's 15 and 16 the lots that are sandwiched between the subject properties PAT MOORE : Sold to Chad Mello? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's got an accessory garage and a shed on it. What's that about? Who's is it that? PAT MOORE : Yea that was that's a probably a 1940's deal as well because that is nonconformingin its placement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea very much so. PAT MOORE : It was part of the subdivision of the 1920's and this house has a PreCO I believe yea it was built in 1928 so there was no zoning there were probably no surveys at the time either. This parcel when the Ernst family was placing it in proper titles somehow or another managed to create a single and separate lot there and I believe that the Ernst family tried to oh excuse me UI lemann= Ernst Uhlemann. Uhlemann family was trying to create keep lots separate not thinking that the common boundary line of seventy five feet would merge them. Again this is all from the 1940's, 60's and 70's those were the transfers and merger law didn't come in to effect until I believe the 80's so you know I think they tried and they it you know common sense would tell you yea it would of worked. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that garage belongs to Uhlemann? PAT MOORE : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No so it's somebody else's. PAT MOORE : It goes with the Chad Mello property that is still vacant but potentially would have a house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. No I was just curious as to what that was doing there and who it belonged to. I did see that you wrote in by hand that it was purchased 2013 by Chad Mello. PAT MOORE : Yes, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken any questions? 29 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER :.No. It's certainly-unique shaped here. cHAIRPERSON WEISMAN.: I'll say. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But no questions I underst-and. • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN•f George. •• • •- MEMBER HORNING : A couple of more details Pat if you may. So if.What you're calling lot 3 I guess the tax map ending in 12 is unmerged from,the rest-of the parcel that's what the.request • is correct? PAT MOORE : Correct yes. MEMBER HORNING : Then that tax map 11-12 would be about•three-quarters"o.f•an acre .77? PAT MOORE.: Yes. - • MEMBER HORNING : And_then there would still. be-the two remaining merged parcels '11, '13 and 14 still merged with- 11. and 16•correct.is'that-right even though they're separated by a parcel in between? PAT MOORE.: I think it's simpler if you look,at,itthis way lot 12 has to,be unmerged from both 13 and-14 '-MEMBER HORNING : ' PAT MOORE,: and 18 well what we call lot 16. MEMBER-HORNING : So those two lots are not merged?' PAT MOORE : No those aren't merged because they don't have a common boundary. MEMBER HORNING : Yea okay that's what I wanted. to-know and so then'you would have a separate lot what's called 13 and 14 is .55 acres and then the other'one is .44 acres PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER HORNING : Assuming that they're unmerged.from- , - , PAT MOORE : Yes right the one the .44 has the original Uhlemann house. • MEMBER HORNING : From 1928? PAT MOORE : Yes. • 30 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken anything? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. 'CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address this application please come forward. Anything else Pat? PAT MOORE : No thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6913— RICHARD and KATHLEEN O'TOOLE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Richard and Kathleen O'Toole that's #6913. That's a request for variance from Article III Section 280-15F and the Building Inspector's November 9, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) proposed in location other than the code required rear yard or front yard on waterfront property located at 700 Peconic Bay 31f February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting Boulevard (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Laurel. Is someone here-to represent the application? State your name for us please. BILL BIRKMIER : Yes Bill Birkmier North Fork Pool Care. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a proposal for a swimming pool in the side yard where the code requires either a rear or a front yard on a waterfront property. You are proposing this swimming pool with a 10.2 foot side yard setback correct? BILL BIRKMIER : Yes that's the original proposal. As of Tuesday the homeowner has asked me to change that because the neighbor to the west Mr. Manny Arturi took exception to how close it was to his house. I put him in touch with the O'Tooles, the O'Toole's actually called him. They'd like the pool to run parallel to the property now and it would be sixteen feet from the property line instead of ten. I do have a couple of pictures and then just a quick drawing of it obviously I couldn't get it to the surveyors in time to have it for today and this is just from them talking. The O'Toole's wanted to you know they just bought the house last year and wanted to make the neighbors more happy and see what they could work out as.an agreement without having. to you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me point out something to you. You also have an eighty four-foot bulk head setback proposed with the swimming pool's location. If you were to rotate it in order to maintain the same 40 by 20 foot proportion BILL BIRKMIER : We're going to keep eighty four feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can manage to do that? BILL BIRKMIER : Yea we're gonna keep the pool parallel with the back of the house so that's eighty four feet so we'll be running the pool I have a picture of it that might help you the pool running toward the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea why don't you bring that forward. BILL BIRKMIER : a little further than (away from microphone) ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea because technically you do realize that pool requires a twenty foot side yard to be conforming. • • BILL BIRKMIER•:Yes and that's part of this variance that we're'asking for. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're reducing the variance relief which is good although it's not noticed here, but the bottom line is probably should have been. . 321 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting BILL BIRKMIER : (inaudible) MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So pool requires a twenty side yard is that accessory structure? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On this sized lot. MEMBER DANTES : But why doesn't it say it on the Notice of Disapproval? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It should, it should have it didn't but it should have. MEMBER DANTES : Notice of Disapproval is defective? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe so. What we need to do is two things. It does it sight the bulkhead setback? MEMBER HORNING : No it does not. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Good alright because the bulkhead setback is.going to have to go before the Trustees because it's less than 100 foot setback BILL BIRKMIER : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We no longer have the jurisdiction to do those variances. You'd have to have gone there anyway. BILL BIRKMIER : It's already set up. CHAIRPERS WEISMAN : So you'll have to go from here there that's why I inquired about the setback cause they're certainly not going to want to budge on anything less than what you're already proposing. BILL BIRKMIER : On the eighty four feet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. BILL BIRKMIER : Right but moving the pool sideways was to you know sixteen feet. MEMBER HORNING : Can you achieve twenty, a twenty foot setback? BILL BIRKMIER : By making the pool smaller. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that's really the only way to do it. 331 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting •BILL•.BIRKMIER :.I'm seven feet from the garage at the moment. Turning the.pool sideways we - could of come down smaller with the original plan I, can't really move it any more further toward the house. We're only seven feet off the garage. • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If however you reduced it to twenty by thi-rty instead of twenty by - forty you could leave it just.where you,have it on this survey and have a•twenty foot side yard a conforming. BILL BIRKMIER : Yes. I'm four feet from that dimension. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Eric are you looking at the - MEMBER DANTES : (inadible) • BILL BIRKMIER : The new location is just a small eight by eleven sheet. I went and took a couple of pictures just to show you.guys today we did it yesterday. So if you rotate the pool on that original'plan'it's going to run from the driveway to the water. ' • • CHAIRPERSON.WEISMAN : Trustees require 100 foot from the bulkhead I think so isn't that right Stephen 100 foot setback from the bulkhead for Trustees. A.T.A. KIELY : Yes. • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's not seventy five that's from a bluff. Let's just double check this. I just want to make sure. Well this is even more 1 guess this is more they're both side yards it doesn't it's not going to be you're just going to scoot it this proposal closer toward the•road. as you rotate it. BILL BIRKMIER : Correct yes, yes and we're going keep the distance the same'from the bulkhead on either pool proposal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright and the neighbor is satisfied with the sixteen foot proposed side yard? BILL BIRKMIER : As far as I know I expected actually to see Mr. Arturi here today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He submitted a letter with concerns about noise and the proximity and BILL BIRKMIER : And the O'Toole's felt that turning the pool sideways'more of the patio-is now toward their house that would be more of the congregating area over by the garage. 34 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it actually works better from a point of view circulation to do it that way cause otherwise that patio is very small you know with it rotated this way instead of vertical. Alright so we have an amended application sketch that we can then change on the survey. BILL BIRKMIER : Right would you like me to have that survey redone? I'm going to need it for the Trustees anyway. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes just have him redo that and submit that. BILL BIRKMIER : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that alright with you Eric? Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? We're going to have to figure out about the whether or not we need to address the side yard as a variance because it is required to have an accessory BILL BIRKMIER : If it's possible I know they would like to stay with the pool twenty feet wide. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I can understand that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Before we close the proposed pool equipment would be in a sound deadening enclosure? BILL BIRKMIER : If that's what you'd like yes. I know that's normally CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a standard condition. BILL BIRKMIER : I usually don't put it on my plan until you tell me to put it on. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Sure. BILL BIRKMIER : All the pool equipment today using the variable speed pumps, the heaters they're less quiet than you and I talking. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay. BILL BIRKMIER : More quiet I should say than you and I talking decibels are down around .65. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The adjoining property owners concern is because of their house is very close to the property line. BILL BIRKMIER : Really close I mean really close. 351 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I think ata,nonconforming setback in fact. ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it is. BILL BIRKMIER : His equipment for.the air conditioning units are right.there. MEMBER SCHNEIDER': Are right there as-well. BILL BIRKMIER : Yea so when I looked at it I didn't and I've know the Arturi's for years. I take • care of their property and the.pool. I actually looked at it that way that it wouldn't be intrusive at all and he had a different opinion and that's why we sent the letter out. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Right and they also have a pool but I believe it's in their front yard if I'm not mistaken. BILL.BIRKMIER : Correct and he built a very large pool house to go with it where the O'Toole's aren't looking to do that so his area kitchen that sort of thing-works out of his, pool house whatever that might be that structure where the O'Toole's are going to use-theirkitchen off of their house to•the pool area. -,. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Right do you happen.to:;know what the distance of.the neighbor's pool is to that side yard property line or maybe approximate? BILL BIRKMIER : The Arturi's? ' MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea. • BILL BIRKMIER : I'm going to say minimum of about 15 feet. - MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Minimum of about,15.feet., . - . ' • ' BILL BIRKMIER : He's got a lot of plantings and such on that side. I really have to go over and measure. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So it could be twenty feet? BILL BIRKMIER : It could be yea. I just know the house is and I don't know ifrthere was-a variance there for nonconforming or how that works but I know that the house is very close to the O'Toole's property. - MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes. Okay I have no further quetions. BILL BIRKMIER : We also suggested putting up shrubbery whatever barrier you know. 36 I February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well you know I understand the location of the pool because you want the southern exposure and BILL BIRKMIER : and we can't be on the waterside you know that's never going to happen and to put the pool in the front yard there's a building in the front yard as well and it's not going to look good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's also developments of large trees and it's not characteristic of that street. BILL BIRKMIER : Not it's not at all. MEMBER HORNING : Have you considered screening the pool or somehow with evergreen plantings or something? BILL BIRKMIER : Down the property line absolutely. MEMBER HORNING : You'll be doing that? BILL BIRKMIER : Yes. MEMBER HORNING : I mean that's a common condition that we also BILL BIRKMIER : I suggested that to Mr. Arturi and you know he felt that that would take away the view as much as looking out and seeing the pool but I believe that the O'Toole's are going to do just that. MEMBER HORNING : Oh the O'Toole's? BILL BIRKMIER : They want to. MEMBER HORNING : Isn't there a big oak tree nearby the house too? BILL BIRKMIER : There is. MEMBER HORNING : That are coming down? BILL BIRKMIER : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay you have a dry well for dewatering? BILL BIRKMIER : Yes I'm going to use a cartridge filter there so we won't be backwashing but I know you want a spot to put water 37 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER -SCHNEIDER : In case-.you,need to dump it for some reason. Okay I have no further questions and you're going to submit a new survey. BILL BIRKMIER : Yes. , • MEMBER SCHNEIDER° Okay. I'm done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No I.have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Anyone in the audience who wishes to-address this application? Hearing no'further questions and comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended survey. The clock will start on this 62,days once we receive BILL BIRKMIER : Thank you very much. • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER1HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. - MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution). • HEARING # 6911— HARATUNIAN, STEPHEN and ARDA • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Stephen and Arda Haratunian #6911 request for variance for Article XXII Section 280116A (1) and-the Building Inspector's November 5, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) less than the 38 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting code required bluff setback of 100 feet located at 1205 Soundview Ave. Extension (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. Now this is a noticed as a demolition of an existing dwelling and a new single family dwelling. It would appear that some parts of the application challenged that it's a complete demolition I'm not sure we'll hear about that but this is a bluff setback at 34 feet okay on the Notice of Disapproval and the survey also shows a 12.3 foot by 8.3 foot shed'and a 6.9 foot at located at 6.9 feet from the property line is that the shed that was granted a prior in a different location? No not this one okay Rob you've already addressed but I think it's best if you enter it into the record the LWRP inconsistency with regard to the replacement decks seaward of the SEHA. Take it away. ROB HERRMANN : First of all good morning Rob Herrmann of En-Constultants on behalf of the . applicants owner Arda Haratunian is here as well as Meryl Kramer is the architect. First I'll insert something before my planned comments it's just respect with what Leslie just mentioned. This application has been a struggle in terms of how to characterize, it from the start. When I started planning this with Meryl I think we have a situation here where we could go one of two ways and often times applicants work very hard to try to figure out how to explain that you know we can keep one or two walls standing. We will in fact on this application maintain and reuse the existing foundation but often times there's a lot of effort made to figure out how to explain that we're not really substantially rebuilding the house and rather than trying to go in that direction we try to go in the direction of saying this will be a substantial reconstruction but we're asking for relief for variance reasons that we think just if I allow leaving the dwelling in place. Just one of these issues where I've seen many times in front of this Board the scope of the reconstruction work is understated at the hearing then overdone at the'site it results in stop work orders. They come back to the Building Department, come back before the ZBA. I'd rather overstate what we're doing. I get the full amount of relief from the Board if we can with the hope and intention of actually doing less of that work with the end result being the same either way. So with that said the application before you this morning does request relief to substantially reconstruct and expand on its landward side an existing two story dwelling that was originally constructed pursuant to a town building permit in 1970. So this is a building that has been in the same location for more than forty five years. It was legally constructed obviously long before the town adopted it's requirement for a hundred foot bluff setback in 1992. The dwelling was a subject of permitted alterations more recently by the prior owners in 2006 and 2007 specifically there were electrical and plumbing alterations permitted by the Building Department in connection with an interior renovation and also upgrading of the exterior first and second story decks specifically there were wetlands and coastal erosion management permits issued by the Town Trustees back in 2007 that allowed the replacement of all the decking of the exterior decks with hardwood decking, new tread railings and stairway I'm sorry stairway treads and railings for the stairs that access those decks. A coastal erosion 39 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting management permit was required by the Trustees at the time because there's a twenty one square foot corner of the footprint of the first and second story decks. You can see this on the survey and the site plans prepared by Nathan Corwin and that twenty one square feet is actually called out on the plan that protrudes'just seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area boundary. Portions of-the steps to the first floor deck also intrude but in the case of the-current application we're actually removing .the thirty _square.feet of steps on the west side and maintaining only the twenty five square feet of steps on the east side. As Leslie just prompted me I'm really offering this specific information in relative to these decks which are really just an ancillary part of our application. We have to replace certain parts of.the deck in connection with the renovation. We're not really before-the Board for the primary purpose of replacing the decks but there was a LWRP coordinator memorandum that was unusually brief and seemed to suggest that the entire project should be deemed inconsistent with the LWRP simply because this little bit of deck was seaward of the coastal erosion area. I can let with respect to the reconstruction of the decks I can let Meryl speak a little more to that but in the context the overall variance 1 think it's important to highlight a few things about the decks and in connection with that memo. First of all I just noted the reconstruction of the decks really are incidental to the main'project which is the second story addition and landward expansion of the house which is all set farther back from the bluff than the-existing house'and decks. So the existing decks setback is thirty four feet from the top of the bluff. The nearest addition to that deck'that-connectsto the new -addition would be fifty six,feet away and while the existing dwelling is forty five feet from the top of the bluff the nearest corner of the addition is actually seventy one feet from the bluff so everything has been designed totstay as far back from the top'of the bluff as possible. Now from a'practicalstandpoint due to the fact these decks were recently renovated and upgraded Mrs. I-lartunian its not herself really that anxious to bear the expense of replacing them all at this point but it's something that we have to`do as part of the project and in reality as I pointed out in'my January 26th letter to the Board that I submitted in response to the LWRP,memorandum the goal here is really to maintain as much of the first story deck as possible to really protect it and keep it in tact. The second story deck has to be reconstructed. There's no way to put on a second story addition without doing that and probably most significantly as I also noted in my letter the decks are themselves the subject the legal subject of a coastal erosion management permit that was issued by the Trustees so even though your Board doesn't administer the coastal erosion and hazard law you obviously have to be cognizant of how your decision'may affect Chapter 111 decisions that may be subsequently made by the Trustee's but I found the LWRP's determination interesting because he actually deemed the upgrading of these decks consistent but the LWRP at the time the coastal erosion management 'permit was issued so it's' a little bit inconsistent 'to say you 'canupgrade and maintain 'and enhance the-se decks but if you need to replace them then you can't do that. Again'this is not a pre-existing nonconforming structure that we're now trying to sort of you • 40 I February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting know coattail in with another application. This was originally constructed pursuant to a town building permit and was later upgraded and renovated pursuant to a town coastal erosion management permit. Getting past the decks with respect to the overall projects meaning the variance standards our application included fairly detailed narratives that address each standard. I'm not going to go through every single detail of every single one of those right now. It's part of the written record but for the public record and for the public's benefit first of all with respect to the impact on the neighboring properties and the character of the community most of the properties along this developed shoreline are characterized by dwelling structures that were set in place prior to 1992 and thus closer than the currently required 100 foot bluff setback. Several have been improved pursuant to prior variance decisions which I'venoted in the application. There's a house that was reconstructed sixty feet from the bluff in 2001 pursuant to case 3400 I'm sorry pursuant to case 4921 at 3400 Soundview, 1305 Soundview which is adjacent property to the east. There was a deck addition that was approved forty seven feet from the top of the bluff in 2003 and then six lots to the west at 435 Soundview there was a deck addition approved all the way back in 1992 right after you implemented the 100 foot bluff setback for forty two feet from the bluff. And again I think it's important as I just noted that while the Notice of Disapproval does reference the thirty four foot setback from top of the bluff we're not proposing this setback. We're only proposing to maintain the setback and that the nearest new structure with respect to deck is fifty six feet away and with respect to the additions themselves are seventy one feet away so it's obviously substantially farther from the top of the bluff than the existing house and substantially more than some of those other setbacks that have been approved in this neighborhood. The biggest challenge for this site is there legitimately really is no viable or practical alternative to the proposed design. Not only because the project seeks to maintain and reuse the same foundation footprint that has been here since 1970 and in fact the same foundation and again in reality we're really seeking to preserve as much of the existing structure as we can. There's really no other place to locate the house on the property no other viable location that would not require variance relief. Where the house sits now in the center of the property the bluff actually curves around a little bit to the east and the west so even if you tried to sort of pull this to the southeast or pull it to the southwest you'd actually end up further reducing the bluff setback just because of the way the bluff is oriented relative to the property and then you've got a swimming pool that's located just landward of the house which exceeds the bluff setback and that was permitted in 2009 I don't think it had to appear before the Board because it had exceeded the bluff setback. So rather basically the configuration of the property, the location, the swimming pool and the orientation of the bluff crest really prevents us from doing anything to expand or renovate what is really a pretty small sized house except to do so on the landward side. So the design has been careful to situate all the proposed expansionon the landward side of the house and really with respect to the physical environmental conditions the existing bluff is in stable and well 41 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting vegetated condition and a substantial;revegetation.plan was actually implemented by the prior owners. I believe that was in connection -with clearing violation, about ten years ago and you can see in the aerial photo that I've set in front of you that's a panoramic view taken from-the second story deck and I can hand that up to you so you could.see it, You can'see-the condition of the revegetation .is actually quite good. It was very well done but one issue is that the Trustees at the time had required-a covenant that would permanently memorialize the buffer which appears•not-to have ever been done. • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's th.e plantings? Is that rosa regosa? - 'ROB HERRMANN : Yea [think I have the - - - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can't tell because the hips aren't ROB HERRMANN :.1-have the Trustees determination here but there was bayberry CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So..they're indigenous • ROB HERRMANN : Yea it was native plantings. This was from October 18, 2006. It was to be planted approxirriately thirty two hundred square feet native trees and plants. Easter red cedar, black locust, wild black cherry, rosa regosa,.(inaudible) bayberry, Montauk daisies so from what - I can figure out the work was done but it was never, covenanted so that Haratunians would covenant that as a permanently memorialized fifteen foot buffer now and any part of that that isn't vegetated obviously would have'to be vegetated but it looks like it was a job pretty well -done. The existing septic•system is located less than a hundred feet from the bluff. It's an older system that has to-be upgraded pursuant to Health Department requirements so that is part of the application-that would substantially relocate farther landward the septic system so that it actually be more than two hundred feet actually from Long Island Sound. As required by code there's a drainage system, leaders, gutters, drywells proposed pursuant to the Town Storm Water Code and'as noted previously there'is going to be some area'that those westerly steps that will be permanently'removed and not reconstructed. Because all the work is proposed landward of the top of the bluff crest the NYS DEC has issued a tidal wetlands letter of non- juridiction for the -project. The Health bepartment preliminarily reviewed the deign. They requested a couple of minor configuration,changes to the pools in the water line which is what caused the revision of 'the map • that we submitted with my response to the LWRP memorandum. Just for the record that didn't change any of the substance of what's in front of the Board. It was just'related to the septic but I want to make sure the Board had the most current plan that also is at the Health•Department.{ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob just so you're>aware SoiJand Water has been out to inspect and '-we were hoping we'd have this-letter prior to right now so you could address it.• 42 1 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting ROB HERRMANN : But you don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're supposed to get it to us tomorrow so I think what we'll do and we'll continue cause I have a couple of questions for Meryl actually about the foundation we'll adjourn to the Special Meeting just in case because that way you can look at it, you can address it prior to our making a determination. We'll try to have a draft ready for deliberation anyway but you know there may be some issue that they have with I don't know bluff stability that you'd like to address so I just want to alert you to that. • ROB HERRMANN : Sure. That's understood I appreciate it. I would expect Soil and Water's report here to be pretty positive given the condition and the bluff and the scope of the project but certainly we'd appreciate the opportunity to look at that. With that I've tried as quickly as I can to summarize the overall scope of the project again I think that the biggest thing to take from this is this is a forty five year old condition. We're not proposing to change it. We're proposing to maintain it. The only increase is really on the landward side consistent really with the intent of Chapter 280 and these kind of instances but because of the way the bluff wraps there really is no truly safe landward side of the house where we wouldn't have to meet the bluff setback and that's why we are before you seeking your relief. I would turn the floor over at this point to Meryl. Any questions that the Board has obviously any questions from the audience unless you have any questions for me now. MEMBER HORNING : I have a question. What is the foundation made of? ROB HERRMANN : That over to Meryl. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The architect is here. ROB HERRMANN : Anything else on the environmental side of it I'm happy to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not at the moment. But don't go away. ROB HERRMANN : Nope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So would you just tell us about the condition of the foundation and what you're going to have to do to it if anything because essentially I do appreciate the fact that it's declared a demo it just makes everybody's life easier but the it's the configuration of the site plus the use of the existing foundation that's the most compelling argument for the preservation of that deck setback so if you please address that for us. MERYL KRAMER : Meryl Kramer on behalf of the Mrs. Haratunian. So the existing foundation is CMU block concrete block. I went down to and it's a crawl space it's about four feet deep. I went there with a contractor to examine that and the first floor framing. Actually we examined 431 February 4, 2016'Regular Meeting the whole house together to try and bring you an accurate description of what we will be doing because as you can see from the architectural drawings we are essentially reconstructing the shape of the existing square footprint of the house. We're not expanding on the seaward side of that structure. The existing floor framing first floor 'framing appears to be in excellent condition. There is no insect damage. There'is no 'rot. There is no moisture because we're•so high up from ground water. The problem lies that the first floor-is from floor to ceiling only seven foot two inches tall which'barely meets code. The code is seven feet is the absolute minimum. There's no recessed lighting because you can't do recessed lighting. There is exposed ,floor structure and the floor framing of the second floor is made not from typical joists but it is made from timber kind of like a post and beam type of construction but the thing that's unconventional about the.way the structure of this deck was done is that the ,deck joists continue.,straight through the exterior wall and then become the floor joists, which is. an . invitation for water to travel straight through capillary action and what has happened is that the entire first floor walls are rotting so basically in orderto preserve the structure we have to take it completely apart and reconstruct it but in doing so we would like to use materials that are more in tune with modern day construction methods which would be floor joists on the second floor that are made from.trust joists which are twelve inches tall=eleven and seventh eighths almost twelve inches tall so we're getting an increase in height from that and we're also. using two by six studs on the walls instead of inferior four inch thick walls that.are rotting. Of course we're also going to be using high grade insulation. We're making the house incredibly energy efficient. We're considering we're not a hundred'percent sure but we're thinking we're going to be using solar power and geo thermal heat. We're looking at the pros and cons of that right-now and if you have any other questions about the construction please ask me. MEMBER DANTES : Are you saying that the existing structure won't meet current hurricane codes or MERYL KRAMER : Oh no. MEMBER DANTES : So the reason that you have to rebuild is to meet NYS,building standards. MERYL KRAMER : Absolutely yes and energy code as well. • CHAIRPERSON.WEISMAN : But the existing block foundation which is a crawl space is in good condition and as are the joists on the decking of the first floor decking? • MERYL KRAMER : Yes from what we can see the floor joists are adequate. We don't see any rot. We saw that there is a silt plate that goes all the way around so it's,bearing.on,the foundation in a proper way and we also we do not know whether or not the concrete,block is filled CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or hollow. ' 441 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MERYL KRAMER : Or if it's hollow. If we have any point loads we might have to reinforce in those areas or possibly take out the block that's there and put in in a small area a poured concrete point load footing. We haven't had the structural engineer look at this yet because we didn't want to go too far on the architectural until we knew for sure we had all our approvals. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you expanding the foundation on the landward side? MERYL KRAMER : So landward side we're actually putting in a full basement so that we can move the mechanicals from the crawl space to the full height area to make it a little bit easier or partially in and out and also give some storage opportunity for the owners. MEMBER HORNING : Is the existing furnace in that crawl space? MERYL KRAMER : It is. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So I guess in all likelihood you're going to take this house down to the top of the existing block but you want to look at the underneath the silt plates to see if the concrete is filled or not right? MERYL KRAMER : We since we don't have any it wasn't our intention to do so but I don't want to say at this point since we don't have the engineering and I don't know what the point loads are it might be irrelevant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to let you know excuse me I'm sorry we've just been notified that there is an arraignment. It trumps our tell me about it. There's not much we can do about this. We're going to have to recess hopefully not for very long unless you want to just get this over with really really fast then we can conclude this hearing and then we'll have to wait to come back to the next one. MERYL KRAMER : I don't have anything else to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think there is too much more MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well the issue is if the existing walls are in bad shape. The ceiling beams of the first floor MERYL KRAMER : First and second floor walls are leaking and the second floor structure so basically everything and if we want to make worst, worst, worst case scenario we could get rid of the first floor joists as well. My intention was to keep the first floor but MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The first floor deck you'd like to keep that and build on top of that but you don't know because of the point loads it might (inaudible) on the exterior wall and it's going to 45 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seriously •folks we have to get out•of here. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to address this application? Alright then we're going to recess so that we can hear your comments. Motion to recess is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEDIER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. ' MEMBER DANTES : Aye. • _ • MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. • - ;`• CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. , CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. • MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So where were we? We were on Hartunian. Do you have more questions anybody about the foundation? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No I•think that we well described both Meryl and Rob. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so Rob would you like to go ahead and address what the notice has to say about the shhed. - ROB HERRMANN : Sure the Notice of Disapproval had indicated the location of the shed-which is I think as you get toward the 'road I'm guessing it's the one that's 6.9 feet from the property 46 1 February 4, 2016*Regular.Meeting line. We can just stipulate that this shed would be removed. What is the size of the shed Meryl eight by CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 12 foot 3 by 8 foot 3. ROB HERRMANN : So less than a hundred square feet so we can just stipulate that it would either be removed or relocated to a zoning conforming location cause it doesn't need a building permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right and you can decide what you want to do. ROB HERRMANN : So that's an easy fix at least that addresses that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So put that in as a condition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep. Okay now I think there was someone who wanted to address the application who was in the audience. Come to the microphone please and state and spell your name for us. GAIL LEGHART : My name is Gail Leghart. I live adjacent to the Hartunians. I have a few concerns about the startup date because I know that July we have only two months out there and there would be a lot of confusion going on. I have children, grandchildren, great grandchildren who come at different times so I can't say well please don't work at this - particular week because they come at various times. I have a Virginia contingency an L.A. contingency and a Florida contingency so I can't I don't know but what date that would happen so I can't you know I'm just saying that there would be a lot of confusion for we only have the two months out there and that was one of my concerns. Another concern of mine was the fence to be moved up and I think can I step forward and show it on that picture? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. GAIL LEGHART : Thank you. My porch is right here and this is where our whole family sits so by moving this fence over here it would be in direct line with our view and if they decide they wanted to sit there we would hear them and they would hear us and so I'm just thinking that you know this fence here moving it over here would certainly be a hindrance for us. It would be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just looking to see if there's any there's no notice before us for a fence of any kind so maybe GAIL LEGHART : Well it's in the drawing. MEMBER DANTES : Is it code conforming the fence? 471 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. This is.a four foot required swimming pool enclosure? GAIL LEGHART : Right. It's already there. ROB HERRMANN : There's an existing pool enclosure fence and this is Mrs. Leghart had contacted me to express her concern about the relocation of the fence so what•I did to try to assist was I highlighted.on a copied portion of thesite plan and I emailed to her the sketch I just handed up to the Board which shows I think I picked green for the existing fence and yellow for the proposed. With respect to the fences relationship_to their shared property line it's being moved about four or five feet to the north seaward so I mean it's not before the Board but I discussed it with Mrs. Haratunianand we I believe Mrs. Haratunian even discussed it directly with Legh-art and again I don't have much time to spend cause it's not anything that requires relief but-we did absolutely try to address the'neighbors concern as we always would but I think we're_still,struggling with how that relocation of that fence a few feet toward the bluff would really change,anything what it's impact is. GAIL LEGHART : That's what my concern was the impact of it being moved over here where this is where we sit. It's very it's close proximity. - CHAIRPERSON'-WEISMAN : It's pretty much just a couple of feet-over from-where it is right now which would give them a little more walking space around the swimming-pool it looks like. GAIL LEGHART :,_Okay so this is where my building.starts here let's say the porch starts here and -we're sitting here so that's my that's the impact it would have onus. Another concern I had-was how tall is the new_building going to be? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll have the architect address that. It's conforming. It's legal whatever height they're proposing. • - GAIL LEGHART : Yea I just wanted to know that's all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine she can answer that question for you. MERYL KRAMER : The.proposed ridge of the roof is 28:5 feet. . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what is the existing? MERYL KRAMER : I actually don't know what the existing is. My guess is it's about two, feet lower because we're just we're keeping it essentially the same we're just adjusting for floor structure height. • • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. 48 I February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting GAIL LEGHART : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Is there anyone else who wants to address the application? JOHN SCOURAKIS : John Scourakis I'm Mrs. Leghart's nephew as well as a neighbor to her. A few things it's a little confusing from the survey because there's a lot of vagueness in the survey whatthey're proposing and I don't know how you guys approve it. It leaves it open to a lot of things. The way I read the survey is it's pretty much a new construction. Taking it down to the first floor joist is really leaving nothing left except a few pieces of plywood and a few floor joists. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that is why it's declared a demolition. JOHN SCOURAKIS : Okay but then it's basically a new construction at that point. It's really not a renovation because they're not adding anything other than to the floor space right? Okay. We did aconstruction project similar to this one and we had to bring in a house mover because we weren't allowed to demolish and we're only two doors down and we're actually are further setback than they have. We have almost double the setback so I think the process is a little bit confusing how this scale of a project especially when the concern is well is the foundation. In 1970 I doubt the foundation was substantial to speculate but I'm sure if it was investigated that it would handle this type of a weight load of a new construction with the heavier materials we use now a days plus a much substantially larger building. They did say that the floor height originally was about less than eight feet about seven and a half feet. So if you leave for another foot.or two for floor joist and you double the floor heights really the original building is only .eighteen feet high roughly if you did the simple math. They're proposing another ten feet extension height wise rough numbers I mean it could'be off by a few feet. That's a lot of weight, changing a lot of things as well as the appearance of the structure which there is no structure it's a new construction. Based on the fact that it is a new construction they do have the ability at that point to become more conforming if that was their choice because they can move the building then back there's nothing left to the building but a floor and a questionablefoundation at that point if they decide to replace the foundation so that's one issue with that I don't know how the Board is going to approve this project. The second is they are going to be demolishing the decks and will be constructing new decks seaward of the project. They could easily put patio around it which would not need as I understand I think a stone removable stone style patio would not provide any impact to the bluff then because they are literally only 34 feet I mean every'house there in that neighborhood is'a little further back. We're around the fifty to sixty mark but this house is exceptionally close. Thirty four feet really doesn't leave much room there especially when you take fifteen feet of non-vegetated buffer it's only fifteen feet to the 49 1 February 4;2016 Regular Meeting cliff then roughly. It's very close. So and plus decks we all know cause more erosion issues because there's no light under the decks depending,on how they construct them and so_forth so plus the fence being moved it is still being moved seaward I don't understand-the necessity for that just for a couple of feet but so be it and the deck is changing cause if you look at the proposed plans there are additional steps being,build.seaward so it looks like it's,there's about five or six steps whatever it is creating more of a landing area. So I think the project for the area is a little gracious request compared to what other people have been put through and had to conform with the Town's concerns and so,forth.including us when we did our project so I think that it's not a renovation and it's really a new construction which.presents a big,issue because of its conformity and plus bluff setback issues so and that's my concern. MEMBER HORNING : Sir did you get a variance? JOHN, SCOURAKIS : Yes we had a variance we got.Trustees approval and all that but we Were specifically told that we were not allowed to and we have an older residence and when l say we it was my father's residence-he bought it in 1970. It was originally, a log cabin. The exterior walls were two by three but we had to go through the great expense of hiring house movers to raise the house cause we,were told we couldn't demolish it. We saved CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many years ago was this? JOHN SCOURAKIS : Seven years ago I think we started the project six years ago. We demolished you know-the interior. We saved the exterior,walls, we padded them to make them all new construction to conform with the building standards'and the new you_know heat requirements, two by six but we had to go through that great expense I mean just the house movers alone I think ran us $40,000 and just 'to save -what four exterior walls. We would of loved the opportunity to demolish our house down ,to the first floor but we weren't given that opportunity so I think it's a little - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :,It's likely the Building Department's • JOHN SCOURAKIS : We went before Trustees I mean'Ms. Moore handled'the case for us in great detail and we were specifically told that it could notbe a new construction because we're also are not conforming and based the fact that'we're not conforming if- it was going to be a 'total demolishment they weren't"going to give us the permits so we-needed to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one.of the dilemmas that we face now to be you know just.for -your,information is that the code has changed with regard to what constitutes a demolition and we've beep grappling with it ever since because now.the code says you only need to preserve twenty five percent of an existing structure in order for it to be determined not a demolition. These people have decided that they were going to air on the side of reason and say when you so February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting tear into an existing wall you never know what you're going to find and it's likely it might fall apart so they'll declare it a demolition. The strength of their argument is several fold primarily the use of the existing foundation and only adding landward of where it is and then on top of that the height is absolutely conforming to the code. We have no jurisdiction over that. The change in height is legal. There's no variance required. JOHN SCOURAKIS : No of course but the concern than is maybe more investigation into the condition of the foundation before the Board it proves such a thing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's why I asked the architect to testify JOHN SCOURAKIS : only because their proximity to the cliff is literally thirty feet. If theyhad to get involved now with digging a new foundation I think that raises a lot of concern there cause even though the cliff they classified as stable very short distance down it is very unstable and we're very fortunate there our small section but the Booth property which I think is two doors down is extremely unstable as well as the Nicholas house that just had their house moved away from the cliff recently and was doing that huge reconstruction. So our cliff is very vulnerable there I mean we've just been holding on. So if they have to now start digging up a foundation after the I think more investigation should be done before that point. I mean simple excavation CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is exactly why I was asking the architect to tell us what condition it was in, what they intend to do with it and JOHN•SCOURAKIS : But it seemed like it was going to me more of a witch hunt after the process started well once we start demolishing well then we'll get to that point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they're not able to pull off what is before us in this record they will have a stop work order and they will have to be back here. I know they know what that's about and I know they don't want to do that so I think both of them are quite experienced before this Board and their testimonies we have to have some you know sway with what the circumstances actually are. Rob did you want oh by the way we are waiting for a letter which I said earlier just so you're aware from Suffolk County Soil and Water. This Board has already done site inspections. Everybody here goes out to every application before a public hearing so we've seen the neighborhood, we've seen your house, we've seen your houses, we've driven • around the street and we've walked all over the property so we're familiar with it it's not just you know what's on paper. We were actually there and able to take a look so the things you point out we've certainly seen. I just don't want you to think that we just have a survey sitting here so go ahead Rob do you want to ROB HERRMANN : Sure I just briefly I'm not actually sure whether the speakers testimony is concern for the fact that we're asking for something that was not granted on his project or if 51I February 4,2016 Regular Meeting he's concerned that this property will have an impact on him or on the environment. The case that he references the Scourakis case 6157 I'm not intimately familiar with the application I'm sure not as much as,the speaker is but I know at thetime that the original variances that were requested from the{Board-was for a new dwelling 62 feet from the top of the bluff, lot coverage variance because the lot coverage was exceeding the twenty percent allowable,and also side - yard setback relief so there were multiple variances that were requested under that case. 'We're'not asking for any of that. The only thing we're asking'for is'this one setback relief one variance that relates to the setback from the bluff which really again is primarily for 71 foot setback for the addition but I guess as everything else in the Town goes back to the Wallscase where quote unquote increasing the nonconformity because there is reconstruction involved. If— you know our'intention was to come here arid try to you know perfume this'for the Board we'd say everything:is staying were just putting on addition on the back side of the house and go out do whatever vie wanted'•to do an say oops and then ask for approval afterwards. Sound familiar? We've taken a lot of pains on this project to go through all the investigations that • Meryl has gone through to basically bring to the Board to say look this is a forty five year old condition, it's, not` an unpermitted legally preexisting nonconforming condition. It was permitted by the Town before the current setback was in place. The decks were-permitted by the Trustees as under'a coastal erosion management permit when they were renovated so all we're looking to do is maintain that and again to what extent the work involves a reconstruction or maintenance or whatever the end result if you walk away and come back two years from now will be the same. The house it sits relative to the bluff will be the same as it has been,since 1970.'The decks as they exist relative to closer to the bluff will also be the same. All of that work is included in here really in conjunction with the proposed expansion because of the conditions that Meryl has already described that need to be addressed. There is no room on 'this property to say okay well let'sjust pick the whole thing up, let's create' additional disturbance next to the bluff, let's completely excavate the existing foundation and then excavate a new hole what- six feet farther landward I'm not sure how that benefits Mr. Scourakis and I'm not sure how it would benefit the town in any way that would outweigh the benefits of'the owners to allow it to be allowed to be able to maintain the structure in its- . current location so we've.tried to put forth as honest and open a proposal as we possibly can and given' the you know almost unique circumstances of the configuration of this lot and existing structures which again' all of which were legal and permitted we ask the Board's consideration for that. • '' ' • MEMBER•HORNING : What's the purpose of moving that.pool fence?,- ROB HERRMANN : To accommodate a new gate. Yea there's in the corner I mean this is yea I mean why doesn't Mrs..Haratunian' address that cause again it's not really the subject to the February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting application but we're not proposing any new sitting area. It seems to be Mrs. Leghart's concern. We're just changing the configuration of the fence to create more space around that patio. MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you that's a good enough answer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything? MEMBER DANTES : No I'm good. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I'm good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing no you know what we're going to do we're going to adjourn it rather I'm sorry to the Special Meeting 'so that we can receive the letter' from Soil and Water which we should hopefully have tomorrow. Rob as soon as we get it we'll make sure you get a copy and hopefully we'll be prepared to deliberate and two weeks at our Special Meeting depending when we get Soil and Water. That was a motion is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#6918— ISLAND ESTATE GROUP, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This application is for Island Estate Group LLC,# 6918. This is a request for variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's September 18, 2015 amended December 8, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for construction of a new single family dwelling, an in-ground swimming pool, 53 I February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting _ conversion of existing dwelling to pool house and' legalize existing accessory garage' at 1) proposed in-ground swimming pool location other than-the code-required- rear yard and 2). _ existing proposed pool house and accessory garage location other than the code required rear yard, located at 5375'Sound Ave:'.in Mattituck. Mike would you please state your name for the record please. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicant Good afternoon. I was going to spy good morning but then again that got away from us'. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Us too. MIKE KIMACK : A,little history on this to go back when you look at your survey there basically you've got the existing garage and you. got the little cottage we're proposing to convert to a ,pool house that at .one time and you probably you all, know_ at'one.time was the masonry • building was_one big,farm house basically, and it had been taken down or-big barnand the two " remaining structures were the garage and were this little cottage that had been redone but it was all at one time one big building. So the proposal is to takethe existing cottage convert it into a pool house. It's non-conforming less than 750 square feet. Construct a pool behind the _ soon to be pool house that will then be in front of the proposed'new residential house which is in the back. , CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you a couple of questions. This is a complicated application. So this small accessory building was converted into a dwellingis what I understand. MIKE.KIMACK : That's correct and it did not conform. It did not conform to the 750 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many square feet is it? It's a two story two-floors. MIKE KIMACK : 580 to 600 square feet. It's maybe it's six something because I think it's within , 120 square feet of being 750. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does it have a C.O.? MIKE.KIMACK : No it does not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN*: So the cottage is less than the definition of a dwelling. MIKE'KIMACK : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is not legally existing and • MEMBER DANTES : Leslie I'm looking at the survey here and it says it's twenty feet by twenty feet which would be four hundred square feet. 541 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I think it's 722 it's 19 by 19 . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's two story. The ground level I was going to ask I presume there's a bedroom and full bathroom that part we couldn't see when we did site inspection. MIKE KIMACK : I believe there is yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Top is the deck because the topography slopes (inaudible) there's a deck and a kitchen,•dinning and living area. MIKE KIMACK : That is correct. A.T.A. KIELY : Leslie for the record a dwelling has to be at least 850 square feet not 750. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. Yea absolutely. MIKE KIMACK : Oh I'm sorry yes 850 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 850 is what the minimum MIKE KIMACK : So it's a non-conforming building proposed to be converted to the pool house with a deck behind it and then a pool off of that and it becomes and the difficulty or the difference here is that the proposed residence has not yet been constructed. When the proposed residence is constructed then it becomes a front yard pool and a front yard pool house,and a front yard garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN. : Tell me about the business activities there. Site inspection revealed two things. Some of the sheds that are out toward the rear property line they're clearly active. There's storage of lumber and so on. The existing and the front yard close to the road garage is being used as a workshop for lumber and carpentry of one sort or another. The proposed attached garage on the new dwelling is larger than the proposed dwelling and it is also listed.as a proposed attached garage workshop so I want you to address what kind of business activities are going on now and are being proposed. MIKE KIMACK : Yes please the owner is here. SHAUN KRUK : Shaun Kruk. I'm local Southold. I own a construction company, real estate investment company so initially this was supposed to be my primary residence and this is when I started two years ago and we've been trying to get to this point for two years. So originally that was supposed to be my own personal residence and I do own a construction company. Now what's going on right now I use it as storage and the occasional build a cabinet, build a table it's not being used for business. It is for storage. I put some ladders and scaffolding in there now but my plans have changed. It's no longer going to be my primary residence. I need 55 I February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting to make this legal and conforming so that I can either sell it to somebody or there is a possibility that my brother in law and sister in law might purchase it from me but that's what's going on right now is not the ultimate plan and I do use it for some storage but it's not-active daily thing. It's a once a month thing so that's what's going on. Now' the proposed attached garage workshop I'm also a car collector. I would like to have a wood shop I am a carpenter. My idea was car collecting underneath wood shop on the main floor and yes a man wants a big garage attached to his house. So that was my ultimate proposal. Right now what we may-do is•just dismiss the garage workshop because if I am going to put this up for a sale or if my brother in law buys it there's no way that they're going to do that anyway so I may CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you talking about the proposed attached garage?. SHAUN KRUK : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you're proposing then to leave the existing masonry building that is a garage but being used currently as SHAUN KRUK : Yea it's perfectly good order good shape it's going to stay and that has a C.O. on it. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes now are you aware that you will have to remove the full bathroom from this pool housethe shower will have to be outside. SHAUN KRUK : Yes correct. I'm fully aware of that no problem with that. Now if or when we get the permit to build the house there's no longer a need for any of that.' It will become a.pool house at that point so you just put in a regular bathroom in that.. •_ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the kitcheri gonna•have to go as well. • SHAUN KRUK : Kitchen has to go. I'm very aware of everything. MEMBER DANTES : Just a correction Leslie the C.O. I have here says non-habitable garage and storage building on existing foundation as applied for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's this that should be in the front yard:This dwelling however is - a secondbuilding that will be in the front yard that would constitute a second dwelling on the property and it's not even large enough as-a.dwelling. , • • MEMBER DANTES.: Is that what it is? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has a C.O. but not as a dwelling. c, , - 56 . February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Excuse me if you look at the architectural drawings you'll see the existing and proposed, the existing being the cottage with the bathroom and with the kitchen now the proposed being converted to the pool house taking out the kitchen and making it a half bath and such like that it's all in the architectural plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We seen them I just want them in the record that's why I'm asking you. SHAUN KRUK : If we do get approved for this it is in the record cause that's what's proposed and that's what will have to happen in order for me to get a C.O. so I've had meetings with Michael Verity, I've had meetings with you know various members of the Board and everything so we know what the ultimate correction to legalize everything on the property is and that is getting a residence approved on the property but there's nowhere to put the residence road side of anything that exists and we don't want to just bulldoze what exists that would just be a waste of you know some value. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well of course the option is don't put in the pool and enlarge the existing cottage and turn that into a dwelling. SHAUN KRUK : It's still not conforming it's too close to the road. Who wants to live right next to the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand. There is an existing framed shed in the side yard of the proposed residence. There are also a bunch of ones that are not described in the Notice of Disapproval if you were to put a house where you're proposing actually all of them would be in . a side yard or one would be in a rear yard three would be in a side yard. They would either have to be demolished or moved to a conforming location. SHAUN KRUK : That's fine the two on the westerly side are pretty much in disrepair anyway. I wouldn't mind knocking them down. The one in the rear yard in the very rear yard also says to be removed that's just a foundation there's nothing there never has been since probably the 70's. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're proposing to relocate a shed that's on the in the side yard of the proposed residence. It says on here framed shed to be relocated. That one looks like it's in pretty good shape. SHAUN KRUK : Yes so there's one that's existing there now where the sanitary system is that one will be moved. That one is in great shape and I believe it's under the square footage of needing a permit anyway. 57J February 4, 2016•Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.Yea but it just-needs to be in a conforming location. SHAUN KRUK : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the others will go they'll be demolished. SHAUN KRUK : Yea'the.others can go. • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause it says on here existing frame shed to.remain. SHAUN KRUK : That one I'd like to keep if possible. CHAIRPERSON`WEISMAN : Well they both say exiting framed shed to remain. The,only thing on this survey that you'know says existing concrete foundation be removed. You're proposing to move one and to leave the other two where they are.. . SHAUN KRUK : Yea I could just leave one at the end of.the day.. One of them I can move to a different property or I mean again it would be a shame to knock it down it's in great shape. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : He can leave them in the back yard.. ; CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as it's in a code conforming location then that's allowed with setback and with location but at the moment if you were to build a house they wouldn't be anything but conforming one would be. SHAUN KRUK.: Nota problem. . MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Wait a minute. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This one. This would be a side yard and this would be a side yard. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : He doesn't plan to create the proposed attached garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well thenwe will need an amended survey. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is that what you said? CHAIRPERON WEISMAN : That's what he said. You just said you're not necessarily going to build this proposed attached garage. SHAUN KRUK : At this point as things have changed most likely not.but if I mean if we can get it approved as this- MIKE KIMACK : The house and the workshop are all legal basically it's not part of the variance request at the present time so I mean he could put in he could put in an amended set of plans 581 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting -and remove the workshop but the sheds are an issue in terms of that yes they those two are th side yard sheds one is a rear yard as long as it's legal it's fine but as far as changing the plan for the workshop that's simply with the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's true I wasn't arguing that I was applicant offered that as a possibility. SHAUN KRUK : We can just amend to show that these two existing on the westerly side are being removed. MIKE KIMACK : We can or I can come in and just make a little thing a little note that the two on the westerly side that will become side yards and require a variance will be removed. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Or be relocated whatever. Mike MIKE.KIMACK : I don't know if they're in good shape to be relocated. No take them down. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I misunderstood. I thought the proposed attached garage workshop is going to be removed in which case those existing framed sheds would not have to be moved cause they would be in a conforming rear yard as proposed (inaudible) principal dwelling. MIKE KIMACK : The other one back there basically is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one's a foundation. MIKE KIMACK : One's a foundation the other one is conforming because it would be in the rear of the proposed building and then if you move the one from the septic field it would have to be moved to a location that would be behind the proposed building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look let's address the more interesting aspects of this which are the structures it'll become front yard locations because it's very simply solved you know you will have to conform to any accessory structure storage structure will have to be in a conforming location that's it. It's either remove it or move it or whatever you want to do with it as long as it's conforming to the code that's not an issue. What is the issue is the impact if any of the existing buildings which will then become conforming uses but not conforming locations. MIKE KIMACK : Correct. MEMBER HORNING : Can I ask a question Leslie? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I just want to ask a question and then please go ahead. So would you please address the character of the neighborhood and tell us something about the proposed swimming pool location. 59 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : The pool basically.is going to be in a location that's not really visible from the street. It's going to be pretty much behind the existing structure. It's going to be below the deck basically into the ground. The ground does slope away once you get behind•the building it does slope into a hollow but the pool is going to be so constructed you look at the architectural drawings as to be built up around it so-it'll be an in-ground pool so it will not be raised up at all from'the pool's point of view so it most likely would be a visible from the next door neighbor I would imagine. It's an open area that would be.Connelly off to the.,eastfrom his.house he'd be able to see it but then again it would be graded so you'd be looking across it you wouldn't basically see a raised pool it wouldn't be an above ground pool and everything will be • landscaped. • - • • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can condition based upon the installation of an evergreen screen along the property line to protect the neighbors privacy. SHAUN KRUK : .There's already natural vegetation along there that-in the summertime you really don't see much anyway but we can,just add (inaudible) vegetation buffer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric questions? MEMBER DANTES : Have you given any thought to putting the pool in a code conforming location? SHAUN KRUK : But then it's not by the pool house so now what does the pool house become? MEMBER HORNING : That was my question precisely I mean-had you considered keeping the existing framed cottage that's a dwelling now correct? MIKE KIMACK : No it's not. MEMBER HORNING : Does anybody stay there? SHAUN KRUK : Currently no. We have in the past. MEMBER HORNING : Did you consider alterations for that framed cottage to turn it into to the principal dwelling andthenmaking a poolhouse somewhere else in a conforming location? SHAUN KRUK : I think that detracts from the value of the property being so close-to the road. MEMBER HORNING : Well it would have a conforming setback. Also I wanted,to point out while I'm talking the Notice of Disapproval must be in error in one minor respect because it's calling • the non-conforming 1.45 square foot parcel. SHAUN KRUK : Acres. 601 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : But that's acres correct? MIKE KIMACK : I would imagine 1.4 square feet would be nonconforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Quite a bit. MIKE KIMACK : We give at that point. MEMBER HORNING : Well you didn't write the Notice of Disapproval but that's my question, could you consider an alternative location for you know the main house and pool house in a conforming location? SHAUN KRUK : To address that I mean to keep the area nice and you don't want to see this house right next to the road as you're driving down the road. If we are able to build it the way that it is you won't even see the house as you're driving by. It'll be you know more of a natural setting and environment MEMBER HORNING : But you'll see the pool house what SHAUN KRUK : You already do. MEMBER HORNING : Yea right. SHAUN KRUK : So we're not changing that. MIKE KIMACK : George if you take a look at the property the way it is you would see the cottage/pool house basically but the land once it gets behind' it drops fairly much and then raises up back on the other side again and when it raises, back up on the backside is where the house is going. It's in a very, very complimentary location to build a house back there I mean the property you can tell is very long front to back and it's taking much better advantage of a better location for a residential structure than where the original building is that's why it makes sense to go from a cottage to a pool house with the existing preserve the value of the building obviously it's going to cost some money to make that conversion and put the pool in that location. SHAUN KRUK : I just want to add to that too the existing masonry building that's there the garage twenty by thirty you see literally a gable roof and that's it. It's underground so as you drive by you actually don't see it. There's also vegetation in front so really all you see is the little small cottage that's nineteen feet wide and then that's going to be it. If you were to build a house there now you're going to see this you know entire two thousand square foot house from immediately right next to the road so it's just aesthetically it's a much better spot to put it in the back. 61J February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : It was curious to me when I took the photos of that George.that it was set so low I wasn't quite sure what it's function was relative to the barn that was there because behind it there's like twenty four inch big piping that go through a concrete structure into it in the.back side so I wasn't quite sure what it's function was but Shaun is right it does sit down rather CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have done site inspections and.it's clearly below the roadbed the grade the entry grade: - - - - - • MEMBER HORNING : My comment would be that when I was -there• actually yesterday afternoon there seemed to be a lot of traffic on Sound Ave. Is that normal or? SHAUN KRUK : There's always a lot of traffic. _ MEMBER HORNING : And people are 'rushing I thought-it was almost hazardous for me to be there cause I didn't pull down into your I pulled right along the side of the road MIKE KIMACK : There was a time when I thought that was the safe,way to go and it'sbecome much more active and on occasion than Route 25 actually. - MEMBER HORNING : Right so it wasn't some sort of aberration of the day that's a normal thing people whizzing by all the time? SHAUN KRUK : It's even worse in the summer time. MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you,. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken any questions? •' MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience who wished to address this application? GAIL WICKHAM ' Good afternoon my name is Abigail Wickham of Wickham, Bressler and G'eisa in Mattituck New York. I represent James Connelly who is the owner of the residence immediately to the east. Mr. Connelly,could not be here today. He is out of the country.until the beginning of April. He has.lived at that location for thirty years so he is very familiar with the property and the area and what we have what I have learned since I, was retained that there is an awful lot going,on this property that is not in the application and we think that the application is proposing a very large over intensification of the property use and it will create density and usage issued if theyare not addressed. Let me start with what has gone on in the past, what isnow happening, what is proposed, the impact of that and what it is that we're ,asking'you. For many years this was a property that was divided from one big parcel into three 621 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting lots and I believe the Sobering family had it. They used this particular property as a summer cottage and a private garage. The cottage was very, very minimal I don't think had regular utilities and they used it very sporadically just in the summer. Since the applicant has owned it all of a sudden the building has become very, very well maintained and improved. There doesn't appear as we mentioned to be a C.O. for the house and I think it's probably been upgraded well beyond what was there as a Pre CO. There is a contractor's garage being operated in the masonry building in the front. There are trucks going in and out from the owner's contracting business constantly in the morning in the evenings sometimes they stay there sometimes they come and go. There is noise, there is construction material and construction business going on there for some time the workers were using the garage at night for auto body work. It was noisy it was late. I think that's subsided now but there is an awful lot of business activity on a property that is not zoned for that under our code and the owner does not live there. So what is proposed in addition to everything that's going on is a huge workshop accessory building which is about almost twice the size of the house proposed and that is really given our client concern because of everything that's going on now with the contracting business it looks like a spot where more of that could occur and we note that the applicant's current business location in Southold as he mentioned is for sale so if any relief is granted here we want to be sure that they understand what is and what is not allowed as a usage in this zone district of residential. It's not an appropriate home occupation type of business. You're not allowed to have a contractor's business at your home that's the Chris Mohr scenario. So that is one thing that we are most concerned about. In terms of the actual impact of what this does I find this map very, very hard to read. I'm not really sure I'm getting everything on it particularly because it's a reduced copy you may have a clearer copy but they're asking for a multiple number of accessory buildings for many different uses some of which I indicated and aren't authorized but the impact of putting the house all the way in the back and having all these many, many accessory uses up front is that now they will be right next to my clients house which is located a normal distance from Sound Ave. and in this location as you noticed there is it's not so much about what you see from the road because people don't see from the road. They're zooming by up and down that hill and it's really about what the quality of the neighborhood is and what this is going to mean to the immediate neighbors both on either side and across the street. The town of Southold, Peconic Land Trust and Thorton Smith went to a great deal of time effort and trouble to put a very nice nature preserve immediately behind this property which is protected forever and so the applicant is proposing to push that house all the way back as far as he can to the seventy five foot setback line in fact I think it goes further than that I'm not sure why the stairway isn't included but that's a small point so that my client will be in his house with all these accessory uses right next to him which should be in the backyard and then looking at a house way in the back yard where there should be smaller accessory uses and this huge two story workshop barn thing so I think It's really an impact that doesn't really 63j February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting :present itself.so much on a piece of paper as it will in real life. I have some questions about the -map_I'm not sure what that dark line that goes all around is. First I thought it was a retaining wall then it says something about a sewer line I'm not really sure what that is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're actually hay bales. GAIL WICKHAM : They're hay bales Okay so they are temporary. . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. That's confusing it's really confusing. GAIL WICKHAM : That brings me to another point. - MIKE KIMACK : Yes that's correct. GAIL WICKHAM : There are tremendous slopes on this property I think the map needs to be very carefully examined to see whether these slope are buildable and whether they are perhaps involved with a computation of lot coverage. I'd like to know what the depth of ground water is at the low points and in terms of what we are asking the Board number one to make much clearer what the uses are and what are allowed in the future if these accessory buildings are permitted -in terms of use of the garage, in terms of use of•a two story pool house never really sure why you need a -two story pool house but want to make sure that that's not for sleeping, not for habitability and not for cooking so we'd like a clear definition of what's there now and what's proposed and so the Board can Make any suitable recommendations and conditions. We want to suggest that,perhaps code enforcement should examine this property to see what's going on right now because • A.T.A. KIELY : They're actually in Justice Court right now. GAIL WICKHAM : Okay cause I think that's important. A.T.A. KIELY : And how it's stayed because they're here in front Of the Zoning Board. . GAIL WICKHAM.:.Okay so I'll crossthat one off my list. So these are really concerns .many of which may have answers.I don't know oh the other point I want to make is my client would be very happy if the applicant took down that huge proposed workshop off the plan but I would like, to caution the Board that if they grant the residence where it's located with all these accessory dwellings in the front yard-there is nothing to prevent the applicant,from coming back in afterwards and getting a: permit to put that right back up so that really should be addressed. If that's what the applicant•is.saying he may•or,may not want to do I think in your • relief you,have to address whether he can or cannot do that because to me that isgone of the very offensive things about this property, is that there's this huge workshop two story workshop ,thirty feet off theproperty line right in front of the preserved area. 64 j " - February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well honestly that's why I asked the question to begin with. If you look at'the survey that proposed workshop knowing that there's already a workshop there is larger than what the proposed dwelling is and even though it may be legal its use may not be. The structure itself maybe conforming to setbacks and height and all of that but certainly you know a contractor's yard is not a permitted use any more than the occupancy of that cottage as a dwelling so the goal is to clear all of that up. SHAUN KRUK : And again it was going to be my primary residence and at that point I would be allowed to do whatever I want for my personal use and it's irrelevant but at this point I'm willing to get rid of the workshop and just get a residence there because I no longer-Avant to reside on this property because of everything that's happened in the last two years and also my wife she just doesn't want to be there. MEMBER DANTES : You bought your primary residence with an LLC? SHAUN KRUK : Of course. I own a dozen properties right now. They're all LLC's liability purposes, tax purposes so and the attorney touched base about something about another property being for sale I assume you were talking about the one 4135'on Route 48 that we built on spec GAIL WICKHAM : It's on the Main Rd. in Southold. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need to address the Board. SHAUN KRUK : Closing tomorrow. I don't live there so it doesn't matter. I'm willing to get rid of the workshop because at this point it's not for me anymore and also I do know the laws in town what I'could'do and what I'm proposing what not to do and avoiding is I could put a residence with variances and we could put a section 8 tenant in the other property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you couldn't. It would constitute a second dwelling. SHAUN KRUK : If it was permitted as a primary residence you can use the secondary dwelling CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Only if you come before the Board and apply for a Special Accessory Permit for an accessory structure in an accessory building that predated the what is it SHAUN KRUK : I'm trying to avoid that by putting in a pool and making it somebodies primary residence in the future. MIKE KIMACK : Can I paraphrase everything. As I understand it where we are now we're still obviously we want to keep the existing garage workshop. We understand that we cannot operate an ongoing business out of it and it will not be such and it never has. The cottage we 651 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting would like to be able to convert to thepool house the plans. are in there to take that out of there. That cottage is adjacent to the Conolley-house that's the only thing he's going to see for the most part. The pool behind it will be in-ground and then as Shaun has indicated what we ' would do:then is we will adjust the survey to,take,off the proposedworkshop•.'We.will remove the two side.yard sheds - SHAUN KRUK : At that point they'd be rear yard so that doesn't matter. MIKE KIMACK : Well these over here are rear yards•these two. SHAUN KRUK : This is gone it's now technically rearyard. MIKE KIMACK : Not to this. It's a side yard because you go all:the way back. SHAUN KRUK : Alright so we'll remove them. - - r MIKE KIMACK,: The.,ones on the westerly side the two sheds we would remove primarily.,the other one is the one directly behind the proposed residence is still a legal a legal building and then that concretefoundation would be removed. That's it., CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alrighty. . MEMBER HORNING : Sir did you ever live there?' SHAUN KRUK : No. • MEMBER-HORNING : And it never had a C.O. that little cottage? SHAUN KRUK : It•is outfitted•and I had rented it out but we're no longer doing that. MEMBER DANTES : It has a C.O. as an uninhabited building it just doesn't have a C.O. as a dwelling. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else Gail? • GAIL WICKHAM• : I Will.be brief.. I have two things,to say.•On a personal-note I find it very offensive when an applicant comes to a'town;function like this and asks.for certain relief„that's met with objection and says well if you don't like it I'll put in Section 8. I think that's arrogant and I think that's disgraceful. That is not part of this hearing but that is rny-personal comment and I'can't go beyond not saying that. What I do -want to say is that the applicant's and his agent's expression that he,doesn't intend to do this or.he's not operating a business and never has au contraire I was there yesterday. Trucks were going in and out. There are, people here who have complained about it. There's an enforcement proceeding so I want that's why any 661 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting relief that's granted I think has to be very, very explicit as to what is allowed and what is not so that all my client wants is not to have over intensification and not to have things going where they don't belong which are going to negatively impact his quiet area. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome anything else from the Board? Anyone else in the audience who wished to address this application please come forward and state your name. GENEVIEVE WOESSNER : My name is Genevieve Woessner I live across the street from that property. I have lived there for fifty six years now. I really don't have a problem with somebody trying to do something with their property. What I have a problem with is the fact that things have been going on. Trucks have been in and out of there as far as I know there's never been a car in the garage. It is a workshop. I guess what I'm afraid of is that once relief is given how do we know that what you've given the relief for has happened and is still happening such as the rentals that were in and out of there all summer long. It wasn't supposed to be going on. I didn't say anything because I don't want to make trouble with my neighbor supposedly but I'm concerned that once relief is given and what Ms. Wickham has said about being sure that what you say is allowed does go on because right now there are trucks in and out of there, there's equipment there this morning when I got up parked by that garage and I guess that's my main concern. I'm not trying to say that this man doesn't have a right to do something with his property but it's got to be on the level up and up and it has been used as his trucks have been going in and out of that property for a long time. That's all I have to say. That's my main concern that whatever is allowed is allowed not what is not allowed is there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much anybody else?Anything else from you guys? MIKE KIMACK : The only thing I would say that we would like to get the relief obviously there are concerns of the neighbors but from the sounds of it if there is anything going on that they don't like they would probably with their right call code enforcement so obviously if there is a situation that they find difficult in the future I'd bring attention to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well relief obviously can be conditioned. MIKE KIMACK : It can be conditioned. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And conditions can be enforced through code enforcement and what we want to do for all parties concerned is to clear this matter up. I'm sure that's what you want to do too. MIKE KIMACK : In the end it's going to be a residential house with a residential pool house and a pool within a residential area next to two residences and so I don't see where density is an issue here at all. 671 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN I think the concern was the contractor's,yard, home occupation, trucks going in and out and-so on that was not part of the residential use. • SHAUN KRUK : Right and that's no longer even not going to happen. GAIL WICKHAM : Please Ms. Weisman would you consider putting this hearing over until we can get some of these questions answered? ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How would you want to do that? • GAIL WICKHAM : I'd, like to hear from you know I think the Board-should have .on the:record from the applicant exact statement as to•what the'use ofeach particular building,is going to be and how it's going to be changed from what it is now. • MIKE KIMACK : We did that. • - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's what Mike is proposing to do is to let us know that ' GAIL-WICKHAM : Is that a new submission? - MEMBER HORNING : No that's your request from your client CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but Gail's here to represent him. • • MEMBER HORNING : But this is a request to put the meeting off until April? GAIL WICKHAM,: No that's withdrawn I'm asking because of the questions I raised and I don't know that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you'regoing to do something, with the survey anyway the removal of the sheds. - MIKE KIMACK : If I wasn't clear basically I think Ms. Wickham is suggesting that you adjourn it for the very reason I've already expressed, what we propose to do, and that is make a residential pool house with a residential pool and a residence and the residential pool house and pool would be in the front yard remove the two sheds that are in the side yard. Takeout the concrete in the back and that's it. It's going to be a residential structure. Shaun is going to build a house either sell it to his in laws or,to sell it outright with that and the pool attached to it as a residence. I'm not quite sure,what else I can introduce. ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can ask you to summarize that in a letter. We can make reference to those in conditions on relief. There's a number of ways we can do-that. 68 I February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yea because the survey does say residential home although the home isn't part of the GAIL WICKHAM : Did we get an answer as to whether the workshop is going to be included or not included and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe the applicant stated he has no need for it now. GAIL WICKHAM : So it will not be built but how do we prevent it from being built in the future and not having this forum to discuss it? I'd like to ask that the application be denied because he's got too many intensive accessory uses (machine stopped recording) Is it on? So basically by granting this application you're allowing to push the residence all the way back giving him the right to add a huge addition later on without the need for a variance creating a huge number of accessory uses of multiple types right next to the dwelling area where my client's house is. I don't think that's right it sets a very dangerous precedent. There's no reason he's established why the house has to be back that far other than to not impact the road but the road is non- issue because people go by there nobody's traveling down the lane on a bicycle looking so I just think it's a very poor plan and it set a very dangerous precedent and it's not needed. That's my position. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A residence can go where he's proposing as of right. He's not before us for the residence nor is he before us for the garage although because there have been issues _on the property with use that does not appear to be residential well that's why he's in court one of the reasons I mean we are barred from doing anything about that until because he's now in the process of appearing before this Board so the best thing we can do is resolve that one way or.the other so that that can proceed and get straightened out. I don't know that an additional hearing is going to accomplish anything. MIKE KIMACK : It's not. GAIL WICKHAM : But that's why there is a rule that you can't have accessory dwellings in your front yard because it throws off the scheme of how the lot layouts are expected to be. On a waterfront property you're scheme is everything MEMBER DANTES : He's not applying for a dwelling. He's applying for a pool. GAIL WICKHAM : He's applying for accessory buildings in the front yard. MEMBER DANTES : Which he has he has there is a variance for one of the accessory buildings. GAIL WICKHAM : For one now he wants a pool he wants to convert a non-conforming building, he wants to add a house I mean he's asking for a lot here and he is asking for a variance that is 691 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting different than the way the code is set up with a typical front yard,and it adversely effects my client and actually the lady on the other side was here she just couldn't wait anymore cause you were so delayed so shewenthome. Grace McDonna has the same concern. So I do think he's asking for a lot that really creates a bad precedent in terms of all these different intense accessory uses right next to the house where they're supposed-to be in the back and we don't have any reason for himto do that other than he wants to put his house all the way back. No reason he couldn't put that stuff in-the back and put the house closer up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well clearly there's a financial reason you know. There's been MIKE KIMACK : A very brief comment on that basically he has the right to put the house back there because it's legal to do so. It's a better location to put the house it's a much more effective much more compliant place to put the house by doing that he creates the need for the front yard variance on the buildings. It's as simple as that. We're not talking about the building, we're not talking about the residence, we decided to take the workshop out so we have a residence that is not part of this although Ms. Wickham would like to makelt so it's not but as a result to constructing that we are required to come before the Board to ask essentially two variances. One to convert for the pool to be a front yard pool house accessory building and also for the pool itself but they're-not various requests or multiple requests for variances here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the thing that is important to know—is that when`relief is granted as you know you both know'we stamp a survey. If we were to stamp the survey that we have before us that says proposed attached workshop that would be something that could be builtlater or not. - - MIKE KIMACK : Can I suggest that we will give you,a revised survey before your two weeks taking the workshop off. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I was going to suggest. MIKE KIMACK : And also to be,removed for the two side sheds. '- MEMBER HORNING : Can I make a request ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we have to move on. - MEMBER HORNING . We always talk about the character of the neighborhood. ,Can I request that you bring us some information on any variances granted within-the general neighborhood variances-for.pools in the front yard and,existing'structures, accessory buildings in the front yard or any kind of information you have about previous variances granted in that neighborhood. 70 1 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting SHAUN KRUK : What's your definition of neighborhood because it's Sound Ave. it's a long " MEMBER HORNING : Maybe a thousand feet either side up and down the road. MIKE KIMACK : George my recollection is I looked there aren't any. George I looked through the entire section on line because I always do that and I always try to give you cases. There wasn't anything indicating a front yard pool. MEMBER HORNING : Right okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I think the Board has heard what it needs to. MIKE KIMACK : We will get you that revised survey. CHAIRPERSON, WEISMAN : Alright I'm going to adjourn this to the Special Meeting that it doesn't mean that we won't be ready to deliberate necessarily but that way we give you time to you know get the survey changed and if anyone who's not here wants to submit anything in writing they can do so because it'll still be opened. MIKE KIMACK : Would you like that survey increased in size make it larger or are you okay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can read it but in some cases. MIKE KIMACK : That's always been your complaint against me Mike you bring them too small. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's for sure sometimes they're like mini micro • MIKE KIMACK : Alright you'll have it. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you alright hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 71I February 4, 2016 Regular.Meeting HEARING # 6915— RUSSELL and SUSAN.HEARN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Russell and Susan Hearn that's•number #6915. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII{Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 7, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for . building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet.and 2) more than the.maximum, code allowable lot coverage of .20% located at, 535 Meadow Lane in Cutchogue. Nancy you can present it. This looks like the rear yard setback is proposed at 25 feet where the'code requires 35 and the lot coverage is 22.56% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. NANCY STEELMAN : The proposal here is we're adding on two parts of the house. There's a garage addition which meets all setbacks. That' is on the south side of the house. We're also adding a living room and a screened porch in the area of the existing deck and.existing porch. We're enlarging both those areas. The existing deck received a variance in 1994 and part of the stipulation of the variance was that it could not be covered'so our approach initially was to reuse'that existing deck and add to it for a screened porch and cover the'existing deck but we did find that that deck was very lightly'framed and it wouldn't really work with what we're trying to do with a screened porch now but that was the intent to maintain that existing line of that structure and then add to it. We looked at various options in the design phase here. The on the northern edge of the house there's a lot of existing evergreens and fairly substantial trees. Even though we can go closer to the property line on the north side we felt that it was better to maintain those existing trees and vegetation and by keeping in line with the existing deck we felt that was a better approach. One other things that I_canalso point out was that I did little' analysis of the adjacent parcel to the west because they're at &more standard lot they have their frontage is on Case Rd. They would have a rear yard setback-of approximately 50 feet back from their northern property line so our addition would,not affect their viewback off that-edge so I give you a few points there so if you've got any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know your sort of wrapped around.the golf course in the back and won't have much effect on any and the fairly small proposed addition. What's the existing side yard? Is it 16.9? . • NANCY STEELMAN : The existing side yard to the house. I have the proposed I'don't have that on my CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're proposing a ten foot side yard. NANCY STEELMAN : Ten foot oh I'm sorry yes on the garage side? 721 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea on the garage side. NANCY STEELMAN : Yes that's existing that's as per code and then we have proposed 15 on the other but we're closer CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the existing rear yard setback? Was it conforming 36 feet was that what it was? NANCY STEELMAN : The existing to the deck is 25.3. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well actually it's 25.3. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No no existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Existing deck yes and you're proposing 25 so it's the same setback. NANCY STEELMAN : It's the same setback as the existing deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just increasing the non-conformance by enclosing it. NANCY STEELMAN : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Questions anybody Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea the size of the site's almost 13,000 square feet what's the square footage of the existing house? NANCY STEELMAN : The existing house square footage existing lot coverage which includes the deck and the existing porches there is 2,278 square feet. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay I see it here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There it is on the top of the site plan. MEMBER SHCNEIDER : So you're cause you need a lot coverage variance as well. NANCY STEELMAN : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So it's not a very large lot to deal with. 73 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting NANCY STEELMAN : It's not no not for that area there's some other lots across the street that are quite substantial it's a fairly small lot within that neighborhood. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And so the need for the garage addition presently there's a one car garage? • NANCY STEELMAN : Correct it's one car. • MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And what will this addition give you? . - NANCY STEELMAN : This gives us now a two car garage and we're adding about six foot ten feet the existing garage was quite large but not enough for two cars so we don't have to add too much. That would be the minimum. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And this is like additions to the living room, living,space you're going to bump that out. NANCY STEELMAN : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And this is all one story additions? NANCY STEELMAN : Correct and that was the other we_felt That it was better my clients were looking at this for long term in their lives and they didn't want a second floor which we could of done and put bedrooms on the upper floor but they felt this was a better approach. Keep the house low in the neighborhood and not be a second floor. MEMBER SCHNEIDER,: And not get hit by as many golf_balls. NANCY STEELMAN : Correct, correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER :Fhave no further questions. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George anything? MEMBER HORNING : No. . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience please come forward and state and spell your name. - GERARD CONWAY : First name is Gerard last name Conway and to your point about not getting hit with so many golf balls I'm the manager of the North Fork Country Club and that's the • reason why I'm here today more out of an express of concern because of pushing that side yard _ 74 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting there closer to the proximity of the property line adjacent to the golf course that particular house happens to be in a position on the golf course where it's already exposed to being hit by golf balls as there have been numerous complaints over the years from that previous owner who's a former member of the club up until recent years and by pushing that side yard out closer to the golf course property you are exposing the house to a lot of risk over there so I came here today not to necessarily object and sat here now for almost four hours but really just to warn them that this is something that is going to happen and it's unavoidable because,of where they're going with that extension. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At least it's enclosed as opposed to an exterior deck. GERARD CONWAY : At least it's enclosed but because of I have pictures on my ipad but it doesn't really do any good for presentation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've all been out there. We see how close it is. GERARD CONWAY : Because I don't know if anybody's golfers here or not but because of where the house is positioned in the proximity to that hole that runs adjacent to it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's vulnerable. GERARD CONWAY : It's very vulnerable as is and even more vulnerable now coming up with'this proposed extension. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : However you're not going to get sued. Go ahead Nancy. NANCY STEELMAN : Can I make a point on this though you know we could legally go a lot closer to that property line GERARD CONWAY : You can do whatever you want I'm just here to NANCY STEELMAN : No I appreciate that I will definitely let my clients know and they're very aware of that theoretically we could of gone closer cause we can go fifteen feet right to the edge of that property line and that was the other reason it seemed more important for us to keep it tighter to the house and then head a little bit into that rear yard instead of going up to that fifteen foot mark so I appreciate GERARD CONWAY : The rear yard is less susceptible than the north yard and there's been some removal of trees of late you know since the transfer of ownership that also exposed the house to more risk. There's a tree that was taken down recently whether it was prior to or after your inspection site visit that you made that was the primary source of blocking golf balls from going on to their property that's now gone so that tree is substantial in size. There was a tree directly 75 1 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting adjacent to the one that was just removed that was knocked out by Sandy that exposed the • house to risk after that tree came out and the number of incidents of balls striking the home increased after that tree came down and now.that this healthy tree which was a very large oak tree that was just recently taken down has been taken away there's. no protection for that house whatsoever. • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know the applicant does have the option if they choose to they probably want to preserve the view because it's beautiful to look out at but they have the option of planting evergreens or anything kind of a screening if they find it .becomes a real problem that's up to them. • GERARD. CONWAY : I just wouldn't want the club to be in a position where you know the Hearn's are going to be in a position to where you know it sounds like hail hitting the house and they're going to be coming to the club complaining about balls in their back yard with no screening now being taken out asking us to be playing on our property so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the same thing if somebody moves into next to a vineyard then complains about dust and.pesticides. I mean you live next to a'golf course GERARD CONWAY : The only difference here though there are a number of houses around the golf course it's.just that this particular.,house where it's located is directly subjected to today's golfer. . - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN ; Okay thank you so much for your comments. NANCY STEELMAN : That helped me a lot because I've been trying to talk my clients into using impact resisting glazing on the side that faces the golf course just in case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The living room. NANCY STEELMAN On the living room there's.a large picture window the view is quite nice .there and that might be one of the things that I can now recommend to them. ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much anyone else? Good. Hearing no further questions or comments I'll.'make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. • 761 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) • HEARING #.6917— RICHARD and LISA ISRAEL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Richard and Israel # 6917 request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 21, 2015 amended November 2, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling with elevated patio at 1) less than the minimum code required front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) . accessory shed in location other than granted in prior ZBA decision #4815 .located at 685 Osprey Nest Loop Road (adj. to Gull Pond Inlet) in Greenport. Hi Rob nice to see you again. Let's see what we have here we have a 61.6 foot bulkhead setback is that right? 31.3 front yard setback no it's a 29 foot front yard setback and the shed was granted at which is.a 7 by 8 foot • shed at 2 feet setback from the property line. The site plan shows a 7 by 11.9 shed at a 1.5 foot setback from the property line and side yard not in a rear yard. So we can address the shed separately but why don't you tell us about the proposed construction. ROBERT BROWN : Robert Brown architect for the Israel's. This originally was indented to be a renovation of an existing house. We as some point got to the point where we realized we weren't going to save twenty five percent of the structure and bit the bullet and coming to you for a demolition and reconstruction. The original house one story framed structure originally built in 1961 with a few additions obviously doesn't meet any contemporary code state building code and is about 1300 square feet. We are in fact moving the house back from the water which is why we're a little bit closer to the street now and the on the survey the 66 foot 4 inch dimension from the bulkhead is actually to a roof overhang. The living space is 75 feet 9 inches back from the bulkhead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How much? 77 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting ROBERT BROWN : Seventy five feet nine and a half we've got a bit of a covered patio is really what that is so we wanted to move the house back as far as we could in a sort of gentleman's agreement amongst owners in that development is that everybody tried not to block each other's view so we wanted to work in that vein. In terms of the shed there was an original shed there that was a little bit smaller. It was replaced by a shed under a hundred square feet in roughly the same location didn't quite missed by about four tenths of a foot I guess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you move that to a conforming.setback? ROBERT BROWN : There's no room for a conforming setback. We can move it back to two feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean to the one that the prior'th'at's=what I mean. When I meant conforming I meant conforming to the prior variance. ROBERT BROWN : Conforming to the variance yes certainly. So in the construction of the new Muse and demotion of the existing'structure we're able to provide appropriate drainage for the structure and just barely get a septic system in there a legal septic system. - 'CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well I should point out I did speak to the Building Department 'about this and they just said we have we should deal with this at the Hearing. When'they wrote the Notice'of Disapproval the new code ''changed that now gives 'all bulkhead' setback jurisdiction to Trustees and-no longer to the Zoning Board as well therefore not requiring two, reviews by the same by two different bodies. They sighted it in here cause it had not yet been . • filed with the you"know with up in Albany that then'legalizes it. So I simply think we should put 'into the record that 'you will need to go before the Trustees for that proposed bulkhead setback. • ROBERT BROWN : Even though the application was prior to that being accepted by the State? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would still had, to of gone to them. If it's not a conforming setback you would have had to of come to us and them you know.what I'm saying? So now you . only have to go•to,_them. This is not duly before us .anymore this bulkhead setback that is • described in the,Notice of Disapproval s,o what we're simply going to do is make reference to the fact that that variance relief needs to be,discussed with Trustees and is no longer within our jurisdiction.,We just put that in the decision so going forward we'll clarify that.,) just wanted you to_be,aware. _ , •. ROBERT BROWN, : I appreciate that, I understand there's been a lot of confusion about jurisdictions. ' 781 ' February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well because you know the goal here was to simplify things for property owners who only needed a bulkhead setback rather than other variances as well. It was no big deal if you needed a bunch of them because you'd have to be before both Boards anyway but if you just needed bulkhead I mean then you'd have to go to Trustees and us and it complicated things sometimes not always so okay. So we're really looking at we'll move the shed back to where it's supposed to have been and we're looking at a front yard setback. ROBERT BROWN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you talk a little bit about other non-conforming front yard setbacks in the area. ROBERT BROWN : I don't have specific cases to present but there'll all within a reasonable range of this the lots are undersized. I think the one to the it would be to the south probably not as much an issue because of (inaudible) longer lot just based on the geography of the inlet but to the fguess that's the northwest they're within that range maybe setback a little bit more but I don't believe many of them are conforming to the thirty five feet. These were'mostly built before prior to the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we all as you know make site inspections. It's a one way street. It's a small very small private almost like a right of way. It's a very narrow one way street right on the bend. ROBERT BROWN : Mr. Israel is here he can address that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright why don't you tell us about the rest of the neighborhood. RICHARD ISRAEL : Hi Richard Israel. I live at 100 (inaudible) Drive which is around the corner from this premise. The next door house to this was my father's house. This was the neighbor's house that I've had since I was a young child so when he passed away the family offered it to us. We're looking it is basically was I guess a summer bungalow back in the day when he built it in 1960. It was a single owner Mr. Garbie. Back then they seem to always be respectful of their neighbors so when they built my dad's house that's next door it probably has a thirty five foot setback maybe a little bit more. The cottage that is to the south of us probably is has a thirty five foot setback. I think Mr. Garbie built his house where it was so that it would not impinge on the back yard visuals that you get from being on Gull Pond so he actually set his house closer to the road probably closer than most people along that road. You can probably go around to where and I don't Frank built his house that's close but he has a piece of water that comes in behind it but we thought of you know me and Rob were discussing how to rebuild this house we were more conscious of the back yard setback than the front yard so he thought it would be good if we moved the house two feet closer to the street and two feet farther from the 79J February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting bulkhead to try.to conform as he says the living space structure of the, house,is. now 75 feet from the bulkhead where it was previously closer in'thesixties so' I'm okay with pushing it closer or putting it where it is currently and not getting it closer to the road but-we thought that ' • , that would at least cause I'd like to build these patios off the back it would be less obtrusive. If you've done the site visit there you'll see that we kind of have a gentleman's agreement there are no fences in the back yards of these houses and the same families have 'ownedthem for decades and we kind of leave that as a rule. It's okay if you want to play football in the back yard and you come into my back yard its okay. We all always wanted that open vista in the back and we kind of kept it that way and so when Rob suggested CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think if you have to make a choice between one'setback or another certainly a front yard setback is usually less problematic than being closer to the water - which is a-naturally regulated feature and I know that's what you wanted. RICHARD ISRAEL : Right so I had said to them you know the two feet is not going to bother me as,being a person who would live there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's that much?Anything from you Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER :-Yea..The old septic system where is that presently,-existing septic?: RICHARD ISRAEL : The existing I believe is ROBERT BROWN : Is'on the south side. RICHARD ISRAEL : On the waterside. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : On the waterside and you're proposed to put it on the street side? ROBERT BROWN : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so that's good. Okay I don't have any further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN':'George anything? MEMBER HORNING : No,Other than in the file there someone submitted a previous appeal that's pretty handy too I looked at that. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay,is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.' 80 1 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6898—FRANK J. and ELIZABETH G. KELLY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Frank and Elizabeth Kelly however we have a request from the applicant's attorney to adjourn this to another date since he was unable to be here and there is some progress made in the Building Department. This was before us for a possible reversal of the Building Inspector's determination that site plan approval was required and we're now looking at a Pre-CO which would remove site plan requirement. There is however some concern with the way it has been written so as a courtesy • we will adjourn this matter until April. We are completely booked for March and so we will have to adjourn this to April so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to April 7th at noon. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DATNES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See minutes for Resolution) 81J February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6920— DONNA WEXLER and RODNEY T. QUARTY , ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Donna Wexler and Rodney T. Quarty #6920. This'is a request for variance from Article III Section 280-13 and the- Building Inspector's November 23, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for conversion of an attic to "as built" habitable space to an existing dwelling.at 1) more than the code maximum number of stories of two and a half located at 1775 Indian • Neck Lane (adj. to Richmond Creek) in Peconic. Hi nice to see you. State your name for the record please. RODNEY QUARTY : My name is Rodney Quarty. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we've all many of us have done an inspection of the property on the interior and you have an existing third story that is habitable that is_completely finished that's conditioned.space and it's. LWRP inconsistent because it is a third story and it was built - without a variance-from the ZBA or from the Trustees so let's look at that but you want to tell us something about the history of that of how that all•happened. RODNEY QUARTY : When the house was purchased it was existing and it was finished and it was used for storage. So when we purchased the house we just used it for storage too because she moved out of a house up on the Sound with 6500 square feet and moved into this one,which is roughly 4000 square feet and between the basement and that so called attic spaceit's full of left over furniture and other things that she had collected through the years. There is no plumbing up there, there's no running water; nobody sleeps up there, nobody lives up there it's just basically storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well it is fully finished and certainly can be used RODNEY QUARTY : No I agree with that it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : for a variety of purposes. It's not the Board state code does•require that any this is habitable space by definition because of the ceiling height so if it had been rafters you know typical gable or something like that where we didn't have head clearance and soon RODNEY QUARTY : Right it's a gambrel roof and the house is designed.the attic.is above that actually. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea and you have lots of dormers on one side . 821 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting RODNEY QUARTY : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : which creates light and so this would have to be sprinkled per state code building code for life safety in order to meet any kind of code but let's see what the Board wants to George do you have questions? MEMBER HORNING : Sure. You have a listing for mechanicals up in there? RODNEY QUARTY : The existing mechanicals for the second floor yes well generally when you have a two story house if you're going to have any mechanicals it's going to go up in the attic space anyhow which it is. MEMBER HORNING : Like the air conditioner? RODNEY QUARTY : Yea like the air handler, air conditioning unit yes. MEMBER HORNING : What else? RODNEY QUARTY : That's it. MEMBER HORNING : That's it and it's just air conditioning. RODNEY QUARTY : Air conditioning and heat that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I did observe it I went inside and it's MEMBER HORNING : Okay I was there yesterday but no one was there. I was looking at the other portion of the application. So you're agreeable to put in a sprinkler system? RODNEY QUARTY : If that's what has to happen I guess not much choice in the matter. MEMBER HORNING : And what would be the purpose of the space? RODNEY QUARTY : It's just storage that's all it is. MEMBER HORNING : So you have no idea of changing other than storage. - RODNEY QUARTY : Storage that's all it is. We don't live up there, we don't sleep up there, nobody sleeps up there just storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I did see that there was sort of a desk area. RODNEY QUARTY : Well yea she goes up there and does her paperwork every once and a while cause there's no room downstairs because when we bought the house and renovated of course the house was renovated around her closet space so she took up a bedroom and a half for 831 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting closet space so there's no room for you know any kind of office or desk space so she just goes up there and occasionally does a little paperwork and that's it it's not that she's you know three days up there or whatever. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay because this variance,is going to run with the_land. If you sell the property whoever buys it is going to have to live with whatever this decision is so, we're - going to have to put in the decision not only compliance with state code with a fire suppression system but absolutely no sleeping, no.cooking, no,plumbing, no office, no sitting space none.of that,storage only. RODNEY QUARTY : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and sprinkler anything else from the Board,'Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone-else in the audience who wished to address this application? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion. to close the - hearing reserve decision is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? "MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) • - HEARING# 6919- DONNA WEXLER and RODNEY T. QUARTY;, - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application same owner this is for 'a Special Exception permit #69f9. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article Ill Section 280-136(13). The applicant is the owner requesting authorization to_ establish an accessory apartment in an .accessory;structure, accessory-apartment exceeds the code maximum allowed square feet of 84 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting 750 located at 1775 Indian Neck Lane (adj. to Richmond Creek) in Peconic. This apartment is proposed at 775 square feet. It is as built. It has previously been occupied and the attempt here is to legalize it and the occupant is to be a relative is that correct? RODNEY QUARTY : Yea my daughter and her husband I mean they're hitting rough times and we figured we'd try to help them out to get back on their feet and let them live there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you intend to be full time principal residence in your principal dwelling? RODNEY•QUARTY : In the main house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the main house? RODNEY QUARTY : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Should those circumstances change this relief will go away I mean the Special Exception permit because these are granted like B&B's specifically to the-applicant because there are conditions that you have to reside in the principal dwelling has to be a relative. Alright so as long as you understand that the property already includes a small kitchen, one bath, one bedroom, a living room and so on with a large closest with a window in it that we know we're not putting a door on because that could be a second bedroom. Anything from the Board questions here? We did the site inspection which is why we're able to do this more quickly than usual. George? MEMBER HORNING : I have a couple of questions. So the livable floor area is roughly 775 square feet? RODNEY QUARTY : Roughly yea. MEMBER HORNING : And what's allowed by code is 750 so that's leaving about 25 square feet nonconforming let' say to code. .RODNEY QUARTY : Right. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So that's what he's looking for. MEMBER HORNING : Yea. Not a very big area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we would have to incorporate variance relief for the overage on the square footage within the Special Exception Permit. This is not unprecedented. ZBA retains original jurisdiction on Special Exceptions which is otherwise the Building Department would of caught it. What we do is when you come to us we send it over to them with a form so that they 85 1 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting can calculate the square footage-and that's how we know.you need,a variance. Anything-else from anybody? , MEMBER SCHNE-IDER.: The utilities are downstairs right I guess on the first floor? RODNEY QUARTY : On the accessory? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea. . • RODNEY QUARTY : The air handler is up in the attic: • - MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh okay. - ' RODNEY QUARTY : The water tank water heater is down in the`garage area: ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience about this application?-Hearing no further -MEMBER DANTES : Db you know what year the-garage was built approximately? • ,RODNEY QUARTY,: Same year that the Grant's had the built the main house I believe it was back in the-late 90's I guess '95, '96. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have I'm sorry 1'.m looking at the C.O.'s because looking forthe C.O. for the garage. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Look in the other file first file there's a lot of C.O.'s. MEMBER DANTES : Yea I'm looking at that I don't see those. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :-It might be in the variance application,if it's not there. They-should be in both though. Got it? MEMBER DANTES : 2001. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2001 okay. There is a time frame on when the building had to be' built by in other words it wasn't meant for people to build brand new buildings and you know it's supposed to have been leveraging more housing units out of existing structuresso you comply'that's why we're looking for the C.O. • , MEMBER'HORNING : It's 2008 isn't it? - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2008 or before so you're alright. Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? - 86 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6922— LISA GILLOOLY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The.next application is for Lisa Gillooly # 6922. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 Article III 280405C&F and Article XXII Section 280- 105A and the Building Inspector's October 19, 2015 Notice of Disapproval last amended January 5, 2016 based on an application for building permit to construct an accessory garage, "as built" deck addition and "as built" fence, at 1) accessory garage proposed at more than the code • maximum square footage allowed of 750 square feet, 2) accessory garage proposed at less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet from both streets, 3) the "as built" deck is at less than the code required rear setback of 50,feet, 4) the "as built" fence at more than the code maximum allowed height in a front yard of 4 feet, located at 450 Harbor Rd. (corner King Street)(adj. to Orient Harbor). So this as built deck has a rear yard setback of 37 feet where the code requires 50 feet. The proposed accessory garage is at 816 square feet where the code permits a maximum of 750. The proposed accessory garage is proposed at a front yard setback of 5 feet and 21 feet where the code requires 40 feet from either street frontage or both street frontages. The as built fence in a front yard is proposed at 8 feet high and the code permits a maximum of 4 feet high in a front yard. The LWRP has been determined to be inconsistent. The as built deck and stairs are seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line and the fence at 8 feet • was built without a ZBA review or a variance. This will also need Trustees approval for a bulkhead setback proposed at 17 feet. Those are all of the issues. Just do it quickly so we get it all into the record now and we can address them. LISA GILLOOLY : I'm Lisa Gillooly nice to meet you all. I guess we can start with the easier ones or not so easy but the deck and the fence first. The issue with the deck is that it's noted as 871 •February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting having a 37 rear setback missing the requirement by 13 feet and I'm requesting consideration here for the following reasons. When I purchased the house in June 2005 the-deck was already in place per the survey completed-by John Ehlers which is in your packet dated April 2005. My attorney at the time checked all of the permits and I spoke to him recently he believed that there was a-permit for the-deck in the original construction. On the back of the property card inside your packet there is a photo of a house built in 1970 and it shows a front and back deck. Then there is an original plan prepared by a Paul Kyer in your packet and that plan has a handwritten note to extend the deck and it doesn't actually say how much or it just says extend the deck and this may have caused the confusion for my attorney he admits but in addition there is a C.O. for a deck addition dated July 7th 1978 and originally we thought that was for the deck on the street side not the water side but since I've discovered that there is a deck in the original plan on both sides I don't know what that's for but againmy attorney assumed that that addition that the decks were covered in all this paperwork so last year I spent almost $40,000 by the request of the Trustees to secure my retaining wall with a rock revetment and - at that time we went through my property we made those decisions about the wall that is now there based on how it looks•on top of the wall and this was all in place. They saw the deck the stairs everything it never came up so I'm just hoping that we can get this I guess I'm asking for a preexisting condition approval which (.neverknew wasn't approved I'm told. I started this road of putting on a garage trying to get a garage. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before we go further we have a survey you know by a licensed surveyor of the existing property but all that we have in our file with regard with proposed setbacks is a hand drafted or drawn landscape plan.•Is that correct? LISA GILLOOLY : Well right now yea right now though we're just talking about the deck which is on that survey.that you have. That is the existing deck when I bought it and that is what we're going for. It is the John Ehlers•survey from 2005. • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea well the variance addresses a bunch of things. LISA GILLOOLY : Right so I was doing them one at a time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay"the problem-we can address the just a second well this one is Nathan Taft Corwin.,- LISA GILLOOLY : One's earlier. John Ehlers is dated prior to my buying the house that's why you have both: One from John Ehlers and one I had done recently for this project. ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This one was dated December 5, 13 updated June 13, 2015 state property lines and update topo.. 881 - February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting LISA GILLOOLY : Right I have one from 4/27/2005 that was definitely in the packet CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we have that but we also have this one which is now that one is fine for us to really look at the as built deck and it's exacts setbacks and so on. Does it have any lot coverage on here well it wouldn't because you're proposing additional lot coverage with a garage anyway. However this is not adequate for something that the Board can actually accept we can only accept a survey by a licensed surveyor stamped as such or a site plan by a licensed architect stamped as such in terms of collaborating setbacks proposed setbacks so I don't believe the Board can adequately address the other issues before it until such time as we have a survey collaborating what the Notice of Disapproval tried to take off of this survey but we • can't stamp it. It's not legal for us to accept this. LISA GILLOOLY : Well that's a problem. I had several meetings with the office trying to get my packet in order and I didn't have any idea of that that wasn't an acceptable plan that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe you were told that you needed a survey and you said this is what you wanted to submit. Yea because it was going to cost considerable amount of money for-you to go ahead and have a survey done. LISA GILLOOLY : No. That conversation never happened. I was with Liz and Vicki several times and I asked what I needed to complete the package. They sent me away I came back with my other things. I think what maybe Liz is referring to is my garage plan. I didn't want to get the final architectural drawings done so I have a rather brief plan for the garage because I wanted to be sure before I commenced the services of an architect but that was the only discussion that we had. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you will need to have a survey for the other variance.setbacks. LISA GILLOOLY : Okay well can we deal with the fence and can we take the garage off the table and deal with just the fence and the decks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well since all of these were sited with the same Notice of Disapproval we can't fragment the application you know and do it in increments. We can't address one thing without addressing all of them. What we can do is hear your testimony about what you want but we're going to have to adjourn until we have a LISA GILLOOLY : So I should give my testimony and then supply you with the missing drawing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea there are some people here who are here for what you've applied for and they've you know we'll go ahead and proceed 89 1 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting LISA GILLOOLY : And then I should just have that map that you have certified,by an engineer? Is that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No not-the map that we have. This•is not acceptable. , LISA GILLOOLY : Okay. • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You will need to go to a surveyor and LISA GILLOOLY : But that.a proposal. None of that is that's • CHAIRPERSON-WEISMAN :.I'know but in order for us to'actually look at what you're proposing in terms as setbacks LISA GILLOOLY : But;the Nat Corwin survey I did pay him in December for this project to come out and do the survey of the existing property. • - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN And he did. He did as•built bUt you were also proposing additional structures. ' MEMBER DANTES : Well Nat Corwin can probably just put your garage addition on that survey just print it out for you. " CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Yeait's not LISA GILLOOLY : Okay there's just some misunderstanding cause I thought i was I thought my application was complete based on meetings I had with Liz and Vicki and the only discussion we had about holding off was the final drawings for the garage but I had the basic proposal you know where it would be • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can't:stamp let's assume everything went perfectly I'm not suggesting it would but we could not stamp this. You would have to do a survey in any case. -LISA GILLOOLY : So I'll take that to Natand then so we can have.our hearing and then • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll have'another one you know we'll just adjourn it until to give you some time to get that done but let's go ahead and talk about all of the things LISA GILLOOLY : Okay cause I want to talk really about I mean the garage is the big issue but my fence around my swimming pool a`rid around my property perimeter is you-know deteriorating and I wanted to have permission sooner than later-by spring to have itIefurbished-and I, wants to make sure what I.can do so going back 9° I February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Which is your architectural front yard and which is your architectural side yard? LISA GILLOOLY : Well I have a waterfront parcel so I believe that when my I have two front yards. MEMBER DANTES : No I know that but which do you use as a front yard and which do you use as a side yard? LISA GILLOOLY : Oh I use Harbor Rd. as the front yard and Kings Street as a side yard. MEMBER DANTES : Alright thanks. LISA GILLOOLY : So with regard to our request for an 8 foot fence on King St. which to my mind is my side yard my neighbor to the east is the Town of Southold parking lot and this has been a place where young people gather at night and they do what they do. There has never been any policing of this area and often they leave at one and two in the morning. They shine their headlights, they rev up their engines and their lights shine right into my home so having that 8 foot fence would alleviate give me some privacy there and alleviate a lot of that problem. My neighbor to the west has a 7 foot fence with a gate on the front yard on the Harbor Rd. portion already so that would set some kind of precedent to bring that around and if you pull out the project well I guess you don't want to look at the project draft but I currently have an 8 foot dilapidated fence along both sides along the Harbor Rd. side and the King St. side and I'm just wanting to put up a nicer fence for safety reasons and for privacy reasons. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'm going to reserve questions and comments till you know you go ahead and say what you want us to know. LISA GILLOOLY : Alright we did I explained the deck that's the garage. There is a hot tub that is part of the landscape plan. I don't know why I need a variance for the hot tub but it was falling under as a building CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a structure so it contributes to lot coverage basically. LISA GILLOOLY : Right but I didn't have a lot coverage problem in the plan cause I'm taking off a deck and putting down a patio so it would you know I'm trading back some lot coverage but MEMBER DANTES : It's also too close to the water isn't it? LISA GILLOOLY : Yea it's too close to the water so but it's actually says that the hot tub is set back 27 feet from the rock revetment and 43 feet from the high tide mark. Now in our waterfront the rock revetment is not hitting the water. Mine is really what I consider to be a 91J February.4, 2016 Regular Meeting retaining wall cause often revetments you know when the high tide comes in they'hit the revetment but again the hot tub is set back 27 feet from the revetment and 43 feet from the high tide_mark and it's just an attractive place to put the hot tub in a landscape plan. It's not intrusive, it can't been seen from outside of my property,' it doesn't affect anyone at all and therefore I was requesting a variance for that. 'MEMBER DANTES : Wait in the new you have your new Notice of Disapproval the hot tub or (inaudible) LISA GILLOOLY : Maybe he took it out. • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see wait, wait, wait.This is last amended January 5th. As built deck, proposed accessory garage at number three is front yard setback for the'fence and the as built fence at 8 feet. So yea the hot tub is no longer in this notice. . . •, MEMBER DANTES : But we do need it on the survey no? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. Whatever you're proposing to add to your property should be on the'survey with setbacks. • • • .LISA GILLOOLY : Now for the accessory garage which is the big'one I was requesting to construct an accessory•garage. I've been a resident of Orient for thirty years, owned my own home in town for ten. I'm, a good citizen of the community I put that on there. I've mostly been a part time resident and now I'm spending the winter months here and I'm finding not having a. garage to be an extreme hardship.Also because of the activity that goes on in the unsupervised parking lot•next door to me I'm starting to be concerned about leaving bikes and-paddle-boards and things outside in the open air and so I would really like to see to have a place for storage. I was requesting loft storage as I no longer use my basement for storage since hurricane Sandy. The first issue was that my proposed plan was 816 feet and I'm completely willing to cut 2 feet off the length of the garage and bring the garage into compliance overall measurements'would then be 34 by 22 which would be 748 square feet and then the second issue has to do'with'the setbacks both sides. I'm quite sure my,current plan gives me 26 feet of the.40 needed,on the King St. side and 5 feet on the Harbor Rd. side. However please note that on the Harbor Rd. side there is an additional berm buffer of 13 feet beyond the 5 feet that is noted lin;the plan so'l am requesting a variance'for the following reasons. The garage I'm planning will,be built to match the aesthetic of the area with cedar siding and barn doors. It will not create a. hardship for my neighbors because there is one unbuildable lot directly across the street from me. There is a parking lot to the east and the,only other neighbor I have to the west has garages and accessory building similarly placed on his property. There are only three waterfront neighbors on the entire length of Harbor' Rd..-All three neighbors have garages on the front yard and the 921 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting (inaudible) recently obtained a variance to build their accessory garage structure and my neighbor to the west right next door has garages and accessories building built all the way out to the pavement house then garage then accessory building then covered parking with a wooden gate all the way out to the pavement on Harbor Rd. So for those reason I was hoping for some consideration to be able to place a garage. I was willing to talk about what would be acceptable. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have the address for that other (inaudible) LISA GILLOOLY : For my neighbor? MEMBER DANTES : Yea. LISA GILLOOLY : I believe he's here. That's all I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright. You want to start asking questions or do you want to just hear what the neighbors have to say. MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about you would you like to make some comments before the Board? • YAN RIEGER,: I have some copies for the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember you from prior variances. LISA GILLOOLY : Can I have a copy? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can make a copy for you sure. Yes we'll make sure you get a copy. Go ahead. YAN RIEGER : Good afternoon my name is Yan Rieger. I am an architectural designer. I served on Southold Board of architectural review committee some time ago and I live on 370 Harbor Rd. adjacent to applicant's property and I have a short sort of history of what has been done next door to my house. Now of course you already addressed the problem of the plan and also the proposed garage which is (inaudible) item from a catalog so here's a short history of construction on property located 450 Harbor Rd. in Orient tax map 1000-27-4-7 compiled by me. At the beginning of 1970 the original owner of this property Walter Meier erected a 25 foot by 44 foot one story 11,000 square feet prefabricated structure of a nondescript architectural • style over an in ground garage put up in one day. This type of home was originally designed and manufactured upstate New York as an inexpensive summer house for the Roxbury Catskill area. It consisted of texture 1-11 plywood siding later covered with shingles by the second owner 93 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting which was Cohen.-,A small one poolseptic system was placed on.the south side-less.than 100 feet from the high watermark of Orient Bay. At the end of,1970 Walter Meier sold his house to Benjamin.Sokobin. After taking possession Mr. Sokobin added over a period of twenty years the following addition to_the property..First he built a new 7 foot by25 foot.deck over the entrance of the below grade garage.facing,Harbor Rd. I'd like to explain that.There used to be originally they had" a garage below level underneath the house. Now it flooded several times so they decided to bury it to just put a lot of soil and covered the entrance to that garage. Then they built a bank over that entrance and added two 5 foot sliding glass doors on the facade for the entrance to the deck and increased the size of 4 side windows. Next an 11 ,foot by 9 foot attached sunroom was built on the east side of the building. Thirdly an in ground 12 foot by 32 foot fiberglass prefab swimming pool surroundedby wooden deck was installed. During one winter actually the high tide lifted the swimming pool because there was no water in it so the pressure the aquatic pressure just lifted it up but they repaired it and I think it's still working. Fourthly a sauna and washroom had been built on the east•side of the building and then he extended the back yard deck by 6 foot to 25 foot wide. Now all these have been done without I guess asking for any permits since I never received any notice or any paper in•reference,to that and I think.he most of the time he did it hirnself but I'm not too sure they had some obviously, some professional for the pool and some.other items. After buying the,property from Sokobin in 2005 Mrs.Gillooly added the following structure without Town or wetlands permission to my knowledge: I never received any information about that. First of all she extended the front yard a deck on Harbor Rd. and built a 7 foot high surrounding the deck lattice enclosure wall. Secondly, built a 17 foot by 15 foot wide deck located in the coastal hazard areanear the bay four steps above ground placed over the septic system. Then she replaced an oversized large french sliding doors on the bay side. Then fourthly installed a 3 foot by 90 foot long concrete paver block pathway on the west side and then a bulkhead was built in 2013 without proper Town and wetland permits which resulted in fines to the builder and the owner. Now I made a small drawing showing all these items on a scaled on a survey which was supplied to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay I see it's attached. YAN RIEGER : So now in reference to the variances now variance number one and two I have the following objection's. The proposed new-two-car garage only' about ten feet shorter than the house has.a 12 foot by 29 foot-and has 348,-square feet of storage plus 816 square feet of •garage. Our objections are based'On aesthetic.-grounds and on the disregard for the Town Building Code which-protects the character of-=the-community. Erected only a couple of feet from Harbor Rd. it will be towering and unfitting for a front yard structure in a residential section. Since there-are' no structures residences or garages'in the community closer than 40 .feet from the road this'would definitely set a precedent. Now a standard two-car garage about 450. square feet can easily-be built on the lot in a different location without even asking for.a 941 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting variance. Now variance number three deck construction as built over years without permits should be filed for with architectural or engineering drawings. Site plan in scale and conform to SEQRA wetland and local code and regulations necessary for a C.O. Now variance number four I have no objections. Addendum, the present inadequate cesspool located under the recently built deck is very small and most of the time over spilling into the bay with grey water not regularly serviced or pumped out and the hot tub is not desirable in the located in the erosion hazard area. Then I think I (inaudible) and also some pictures of the grey water spilling into the bay and some erosion and not erosion I mean flooding and Harbor Rd and Narrow River Rd. area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh I was looking at your drawings I'm sorry. YAN RIEGER : Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought you were going to continue. Alright you're finished? What he did was read essentially what he submitted to us along with some other materials and we'll make sure that you'll get a copy so that you can reply. If you'd like to reply now to some LISA GILLOOLY : I would like to reply now. MEMBER DANTES : What's the lot size cause this survey say 16,350 square feet where the Notice of Disapproval references an accessory garage for a 20,000 to 60,000 square foot lot. A.T.A. KIELY : If it's 16,000 the building size can only be 660 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. USA GILLOOLY : Look at Nat Corwin's survey he's the most that would be the right'dimensions. A.T.A. KIELY : That would be sixteen so the building code would be 660 square feet for the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is an error in the Notice of Disapproval. It sites a maximum of 750 square feet but that's based on lot size and they have the wrong lot size down. They're referencing A.T.A. KIELY : 21,780 in the Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. How did that happen. A.T.A. KIELY : And the survey says 16,350. 951 February 4, 2016 Regular. Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 16,350 well the old survey is going to be. accurate •1 mean it is a stamped survey. • • LISA GILLOOLY : Well first of all I'd like to • MEMBER DANTES : It still says 16,472 • A.T.A. KIELY : So we have three different . LISA GILLOOLY : Well because I'm a waterfront property the " ' MEMBER DANTES : Yea but (inaudible) both within a hundred feet of each other then the Notice of Disapproval LISA GILLOOLY : No I would go with the surveys I don't know who prepared CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's why you see we have to have a survey. LISA GILLOOLY : That's a brand new survey that I had made for this hearing.• CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea well I'm going to assume that that's accurate but what we're saying now was that based on the accuracy of your survey there is an inaccuracy in the Notice of Disapproval written by the Building Department because when they said the code permits a maximum what they're doing is'saying let's see the proposed accessory garage is not permitted pursuant to section 280-15C which states such,buildings shall not exceed,750 square-feet on lots 20,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet okay and they're saying it's 816 is what you're proposing. In order to for it on your 1600 plus square feet lot you're going to have to you're -permitted a maximum of 650 square'feet. - LISA GILLOOLY : I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 660 square feet. LISA GILLOOLY : Okay. So we can visit that. I just would like to say in response to John Rieger I'm surprised to'find him here today. He called'me ten days ago after receiving rriy packet I went through the packet with him and he informed me that he had no problem with my permit and h• e just wanted to hear from me what was happening. It seems he'sthen gone out beyond in our neighborhood there's only four people on our entire street so whatever petitions and things he's been conjuring up are surprising tome but'first of:all I would like to be on the record to know that every single permit that he mentioned is in'your packet. There's a permit for the pool, there's a permit for 'the pool deck, there's a permit for the greenhouse and sauna.and there is a permit for the existing deck. We're just talking about a small piece. I did not do any of that construction because if you look at the John Ehlers survey from 2005 that deck.is there 961 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting prior to my ever owning the house so he completely fabricated a whole list of things which is somewhat upsetting and what's really surprising about his appearance here today is I'm trying to remedy things that I was unaware of that might be wrong as,part of this process and to my mind my neighbor has been doing you know my neighbor John Rieger on the other hand is repeatedly broken the law. In the ten years that he has been my neighbor I have watched him build a shed, build a (inaudible) and attach it to my fence with zero setback to my property line, add'wood to his bulkhead he does not have permission to have wood in his bulkhead. I went before the town and was granted permission'to do that. He's brought in truckloads of fill for his front yard and he is currently building a jetty between our two properties and probably the worst thing that he does is runs a glass blowing facility on his front lawn seven days a week as early at 7 a.m. and sometimes late into the night. You see he's a stained glass craftsman. He sends stained glass all over the country to the best of my knowledge he has absolutely no workshop except the front lawn eight feet away from my bedroom window and four feet away from Harbor Rd. and I too have some pictures I'd like to share with you of what he's four feet on the front property the jetty is being hand built this is what is the front lawn behind the structure that was built. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can we keep these for our file? LISA GILLOOLY : Here is a picture of a lean-to from his house to my fence that is attached to my fence. That was taken this morning. Here is a picture of a gate on Harbor Rd. that is three feet from the pavement and this fence was erected by him with no permits and MEMBER DANTES : You might want to talk to the Trustees about the jetty cause that's something,they might be concerned about. LISA GILLOOLY : So it's disappointing that we have to air these things here but if you check John's list of grievances I do have permits for all the things on his list and I don't believe he has permits for his lean-tos for having a business that's active seven days a week on his front lawn and for building a jetty and bringing fill in. .CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was before us I can't remember exactly what the variances were but this your neighbor was before the Zoning Board. I've been on the Board for ten years and I do remember he was before the Board I would have to look at the prior you know to see what LISA GILLOOLY : It's disappointing my garage is sited almost identical to his garage site and then his sheds so it doesn't come out any further so it's really kind of shocking that he's here as an you know but that's the right of neighbors and small neighborhoods and it's disappointing but. MEMBER DANTES : Do you know if he got a variance for his garage? 971 .February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting -LISA GILLOOLY : I have no idea but , • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what we have to look at the priors. Perhaps you can ,address that sir. Do you recall what you were before the Zoning Board for? LISA GILLOOLY : And-there are two sheds in front of the-garage moving'out toward Harbor Rd. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we've been to the site of course. We've seen it. We've gone up and down Harbor, King and so on. You're going to talk into the mic please., YAN RIEGER : My garage is 20 foot by 22 feet and about over 40 feet away from the main road I mean from Harbor Rd. and ' • LISA GILLOOLY : No not•forty.it's not forty feet. YAN RIEGER : It's yea it's over 42 feet. LISA•GILLOOLY : And the sheds that continue on? - YAN RIEGER : The shed is something else. There are two sheds which I applied for variance and which I received the variance for which are I would say about 30 feet or 28 feet 'away from 6 foot by 12 foot sheds which raised maybe thirty,forty years ago and nobody ever complained until somebody did and I applied for a variance which I received. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN -Okay thank, you. Is there-someone else who'd like to address the application? LISA GILLOOLY : And I've brought my builder .Bob Sorrenson.- Bob's' a respected. builder in Orient. He's done all of the work on my house as far as anything that has been done. There's been nothing structurally changed in my.house since I bought it. I've replaced CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry come to the microphone: • ROBERT SORRENSON : My name is Robert Sorrenson I'm a contractor in Orient. I've been for about thirty seven years and all'we've done is replaced doors exactly,where they were andif you look at that survey from 2005 done by'John Ehlers'it clearly shows•the'deck exactly where-it is today. It has not been added to by Lisa. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you considered instead of an eight foot high fence perhaps, putting.in evergreen screening for privacy? They-grow a lot higher,than eight feet and they can, be extremely dense. " • LISA GILLOOLY : Well I have a swimming pool ma'am so I have to put a fence 981 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to put a four foot fence. LISA GILLOOLY : Well the expense of doing a four foot fence and then adding a line I need I spent now on the King St. side it's critical. I would consider that as it turns onto the Harbor Rd. side but the only neighbor on King St. is this very busy parking area late into the night that no one polices MEMBER DANTES : Would you put some sort of like evergreen screening in part of your fence if we granted a fence? LISA GILLOOLY : Yes I'd be happy to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On the street side. LISA GILLOOLY : Well actually I wanted to put the fence out on that side out so because people are parking on my lawn now. The parking lot is in disarray on that side and after Sandy all the pavement went into the bay I mean the Town is also my other neighbor but that hasn't been addressed so a lot of people are pulling up and parking on what is my lawn so I had it surveyed and I would like to put a fence on the pure perimeter to keep people from parking there and just forcing them to use what's left of the parking lot. So I would definitely prefer to have a fence to the perimeter on that side and then I know I have to keep it in as it turns onto Harbor Rd. and I would do a lower fence and evergreen on Harbor Rd. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When variance relief is justified based on a balancing test that we're obligated legally to use in order to make a determination we are required by law to grant the minimal variance the least non-conformity reasonably possible. Having you know heard some concerns and also now realizing the Notice of Disapproval is not accurate in terms of the square footage of the garage or you said you'd make it conforming it's going to have to be 660 square feet maximum sort of change of where you want to locate this fence in other words what is minimal in your mind the minimal non-conformance that you can live with. That isn't to suggest . that it would be granted automatically but if we could see what the absolute bare bones minimum relief that you're proposing could be the Board would you know be in a better position to entertain variances. LISA GILLOOLY : I found a variance that grants a five foot fence that was dated in the 1970's that I have as part of this hearing so does that mean CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And where was that? LISA GILLOOLY : Did you say where is that or when was that? Where are my glasses? It was granted 10/14/1976 for permission to erect accessory structure in front yard. Upon application 991 February 4, 2016.Regular Meeting • of Skinny Dip Pools for Benjamin Sokobin New York for a variance in accordance with the zoning ordinance for permission to erect an accessory structure it says it's in the front yard I don't know what this, this isn't the one there's • MEMBER DANTES : Some of the decisions from the 70's are barely legible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're also not necessarily the same. LISA GILLOOLY : Alright here it is this`is it September 1976 upon application 'of Skinny Dip Pools again for a variance in accordance with the zoning ordinance for permission to erect a structure in the front yard again wait it says something down here after investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to erect pool shall be no closer than.15 feet to the southerly and easterly property line and the pool shall be surrounded by a five foot fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where was this located that address for that? LISA-GILLOOLY : 450 Harbor Rd. What do you mean?: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I'm asking what LISA GILLOOLY : Yea this was the previous owner's variance for this pool and a five foot fence. MEMBER DANTES : Of your property? LISA GILLOOLY : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that should run with the land.' LISA GILLOOLY : So that would mean I could do at least CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't do it anymore but,at the time it was granted of the variance should run with the land which means that you should' based on that part of the decision be permitted to put up a five foot high fence in your front yard that's what that did you submit that to us Lisa? • LISA GILLOOLY : You know I think I might of found it late in the game. I have an extra copy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's a prior so it's not oh-it's a priorbn your property no? 2206 is -that 2206?-It is it should be in our packet okay we have to have a look at that. When people . r have two front yards there is some additional burden often particularly, if it's at the end of'a public right of way ,and a beach. However often people will do legal things like putting up evergreen screening with a,four or five foot fence,that will be a barrier to people to garbage 100 1 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting -and stuff like'that and parking but in your case a five would be conforming for the swimming • pool or for a front yard fence. Now it probably wasn't located necessarily right on the property line. I'm going to have to read that and see exactly probably in laser fiche there will be a survey that we can look at to see exactly where the five foot high fence was granted permission to be built so maybe we'll research that a little bit. LISA GILLOOLY : Well it's still there and it's in about 'it's the same fence it's just been falling down now. • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh it's the existing one that's around the pool pretty much. LISA GILLOOLY : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so that was built so it was built a foot higher than what the code permitted. But it's not along the front yard property line. ROBERT SORRENSON : No it's on the east side adjacent to the town property and I believe the fence is about seven feet tall right now. It's an old stockade fence it's been there for quite some time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it was never built at five feet to your knowledge it was built at . seven? ROBERT SORRENSON : I think it's six or seven. MEMBER SCHNIEDER : It probably was replaced. It was in the 70's? CHAIRPERSON•WEISMAN : Yea it was likely replaced with a higher fence. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : A fence is not going to last forty years. LISA GILLOOLY : Well you can tell it hasn't been replaced during my ten year cause it's in really bad shape. YAN RIEGER : I have question. She got two large propane tanks right to the property line there is that legal? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is it along your side yard? YAN RIEGER : Narrow River Rd. the place that we just talking about. LISA GILLOOLY : It's on King St. 101 I February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting YAN RIEGER : (inaudible)'it is on the parking I mean facing the parking lot at the-end of Narrow River Rd. _, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN': Are those tanks on your property? LISA GILLOOLY : Those are tanks on my property and it's another reason I'd like to put the fence on the outside so I can cause I do get concerned that people can back into those tanks but they are securely on my property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I honestly don't know what the code permits with propane tanks do you?.I don't know the answer to that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well when I was there yesterday those propane tanks are yours so your property-still comes more to the road. _ LISA GILLOOLY : The road is actually on my property. I had a recent survey done and the road is • actually been-payed onto my property. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So this survey here is inaccurate with the edge of-pavement. LISA GILLOOLY : Is that the Ehlers survey or the new survey by the Nat Corwin? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Corwin. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Corwin.'Yea this one shows the edge of pavement outside your'property , line but I witnessed yesterday it_appeared that the tanks were on soil but the edge of pavement was very close to that. ' LISA GILLOOLY : And I had the property staked right I don't know if you could still see the stakes but there were on the pavement. There is an orange marker on the pavement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we gotta maybe go out and look at it again. LISA GILLOOLY : Okay . - CHAIRPERSON WEISIVIAN I do know that propane tanks have to by state code be a ,certain distance from windows and from other electric and• all that but I honestly don't know the details off the top of my head but this survey is 'showing them clearly on the applicant's property and LISA GILLOOLY And I think the gas company is aware of you know those placernents doing the gas company placed them there according to-their guidelines. Are we privy to when you come ' 102 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting on the site visit? I wasn't aware that you came on a site visit. I would of loved to show you what the plan is and'or do you just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we don't really speak to applicants unless it's an interior inspection then we obviously have to make an appointment so someone is there to let us in and we did that with a couple of applications today because it was like a third story interior and we have to go in and see it. Generally the open meetings law requires the Board to make individual site inspections. We can't be in a quorum without being before the public and so we go out at our own convenience between the time we get the application and the time of the public hearing and inspect the property and the neighborhood and the grounds so that it's not just what's on paper we actually do that. We don't make appointments and we don't go together. So that's really to avoid discussing an application. People often say gee what do you think well we can't we can't think unless it's in front of everybody. We can think but we can't talk about it and so that's why we don't make appointments. We do generally tend to announce ourselves. We don't want to surprise the bejesus out of somebody who's sunbathing in their back yard and then we suddenly show up. We call out and say Zoning Board or like the meter readers here so yea we don't do that. If there are questions we'll ask you at the hearing. LISA GILLOOLY : Okay so where do we stand now. I'm again Derek Bossen's plan that I gave to Vicki she actually sent me back to Derek Bossen to add things to it so that it would be proper and able to I was never told that was not an adequate plan so I apologize cause I feel like:this is been a little bit of a waste of time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not really I don't think so. I mean we have testimony.-We see what some of the issues are. We learned more about the character of the neighborhood. We learned about the history of the parcel. We know what you're proposing to do. You've already indicated you know'willingness to ask for less degree of non-conformity and I think all we need now is for you to consider everything we've talked about and to put on a survey exactly what you're proposing. Where fencing is being proposed, at what height, where the proposed accessory garage is going to be. It's probable that since it now needs to be no more than 660 square feet you'll be able to increase that front yard setback off of Harbor you know and make it a little more conforming to the code and perhaps a little more like what the other folks who have waterfront property also they have accessory structures in their front yard which is code permitting but it needs to meet a certain setback so do everything you can to try and think through with your architect and your landscape designer how you can bring this into greater conformity and then put that on a survey and what we'll do is this hearing will stay open so we'll make sure you have a copy of what Mr. Rieger has just submitted so that you can make comments. Take a look at it and what we'll do then is adjourn this to give you time to get this stuff done on the survey and to think about a reduction is what you're asking for and we will 103 I ' February 4, 2016.Regular Meeting you know we will continue on it at another hearing. We,probably won't need,to take nearly as much testimony I would think. We will have to adjourn this to April because next month is so blocked up we're so booked we simply can't accommodate any adjournments.. We just had another adjournment and put them on for April as well: MEMBER-DANTES : Do we need,another hearing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me poll the Board. If we-think we don't need another hearing we want_to just leave it open or we can close it subject to receipt of that information. • The problem with doing that is then if there are any other comments or questions or from us we can't ask them. -A.T.A. KIELY : Why don't you kick it to the Special? • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea well what I can do well we can adjourn it to the special meeting .in two weeks. I don't know if that's going.to give you enough time. LISA GILLOOLY : I'll have it done:I'II'have it done. • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you what let's do this then let us just adjourn to the special meeting. Do what you're going to do. If the Board has ongoing questions which may not be-the case if it's'not the case we'll close it and then proceed to deliberate: We'll write a'draft up and we'll make a determination. If the Board has questions then we will adjourn it to the next available public hearing date which would be in April. Now in the interim anybody-interested can come to our•office and FOIL the-information. In other words if .any of the neighbors in Orient want to see what's.going on between now and, two weeks when we, will have the meeting for the Special Meeting come into the office fill out a FOIL request very simple and our staff will show you anything that's,in.the file and since it's still open you can write -written - comments about it if you'd like. You can make copies they Will make them for you and you'll pay whatever,twenty five cents or something and I think that.way We'll be able to resolve a number of these things. So why don't we do that let's LISA GILLOOLY : That sounds very reasonable. Thank you. a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I'm going to„make a motion to adjourn this to the YAN RIEGER : May I, make a comment on the noise factor currently. Usually I sleep till eight o'clock in the morning and I do my exercise, have my breakfast and start my work which she's - referring'to carving I had been commissioned to do some carvings for a high school and I do that maybe a couple of weeks and I'm amazed that somebody noticed it at seven o'clock in the morning cause usually it's not my time. 1,041 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know again the Board really tries to avoid altercations among neighbors or misunderstandings. Hopefully you can resolve all those things yourselves but it really isn't what's before us. The only time we really get upset about a lot of noise is if you were conducting a home occupation that clearly broke the noise code because the decibel level was so loud. We have granted carpenter shops and so on in above garages many times but when you know when it's close to a property line we might say to you you're going to have to condition the space and you're going to have to keep the windows closed you know so that the chainsaw, buzz saw, table saw whatever is not really making a very big impact on the neighborhood so LISA GILLOOLY : It's two feet from my property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know and that's why we have setbacks and that's why we attempt to reduce non-conformance so that we avoid one neighbor having a you know bad impact on the next neighbor. That's what the whole intent of zoning is to protect everybody. So we take variance relief from those conforming setbacks seriously because it does have an effect and a lot of things predated zoning and now we're stuck with all these non-conforming things which we're trying to eliminate or improve upon. So we all kind of we all live here. We have to live with what's out there and we do the best we can to you know to respect reasonable property rights the Zoning Board is like a relief valve from zoning which came in often after things were built so let's go ahead and do it that way. We're going to make a I'm going to adjourn this to the Special Meeting which is two weeks from today at 5 o'clock. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Leslie I just got one note real quick. If you look at the survey from Corwin and compare it to your landscape plan the rear yard setback to the mean high water line is it indicates 37 feet on the landscape plan and on Corwin's survey it indicates 35 feet so there's a discrepancy there of two feet. I mean it would be nitpicking but it's all dimensional what we're talking about so that's relevant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well yea a two foot difference is a substantial difference. So that's MEMBER SHCNEIDER : Keep that in mind when you're redoing the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just don't do this without surveys because you know even the Notice of Disapproval got this thing wrong so we do our best to catch everything so that we make everything legit. You know we make sure we try not to miss anything so that you have what you need or we have good reason for not allowing you to have what you want so let's now may I adjourn this to the Special Meeting which is on February 18th. If we have no further questions or if you're unable to produce what we're looking for by then well we'll just adjourn it again but if you can produce it and we're satisfied with it we'll close it and do what we're 1051 February 4, 2016 Regular Meeting going to do. If we have questions,,as I,said we'll adjourn to another hearing so we can ask you the questions. Alright is there a second? MEMBER SHCNEIDER : Second. ROBERT SORRENSON :"Thank you for your time. • CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN,: You're,very welcome. All in favor? • MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) , • • • • • • 106 I February 4, 2016 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. SignatureUZ‘41)221-0\ Jiw&Ib Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : March 1, 2016 107