Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/03/2016 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 March 3, 2016 9:25 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES— Member GERARD GOEHRINGER— Member GEORGE HORNING — Member (left at 2:15 P.M.) KENNETH SCH N EI DER— Member VICKI TOTH — Board Assistant STEPHEN KI ELY—Assistant Town Attorney March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Robert, Jr. and Noreen Fisher# 6924 3 - 11 Elizabeth and Gus Mantikas# 6928 11 - 19 Neil Stronski and Patricia Perez# 6929 19 - 29 Marjorie Adams# 6930 29 - 32 Mark Cohen # 6932 33— 35 George and Lisa Haase# 6923 35 - 37 Lazarus Alexandrou # 6927 37 - 38 Michelle Roussan # 6931 38 -44 Charles Foster Reeve# 6926 44 - 53 Eligio O. Lopez (CV) and 200 Skunk Lane, LLC# 6912 54 - 63 Anthony Pagoto# 6921 63 - 66 Isidore Miller# 6925 67 - 70 Anthony and Lisa Sannino # 6882 70 - 76 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING #6924— ROBERT,JR. and NOREEN FISHER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Application before the Board is for Robert Jr. and Noreen Fisher #6924. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18 and Article III Section 280- 15F and the Building Inspector's December 9, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for demolition of existing single family dwelling and construction of a new single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 50 feet, 2) existing accessory in-ground swimming pool at less than the code required front yard setback of 50 feet on a waterfront property located at 2530 Vanston Rd. (aka Old Cove Rd.)(adj. to Cutchogue Harbor) in Cutchogue. Good morning Rob. It looks like we have side yards what is this a side new single family dwelling with a front yard setback at 33 feet where the code requires 50. The existing pool will be partially in a front yard when the house is constructed and we have a setback of the pool 36 feet where the code requires 50 feet. Is that right? ROB HERRMANN : That's how it reads. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay what would you like us to know? ROB HERRMANN : Good morning Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the Fishers. The Fishers are both here with Mark Schwartz who is the project architect. This is actually one of the more interesting variance application I've had before the Board which we developed after I met both with Damon Rallis and with Mike Verity so that I could understand not only the interpretations of the Building Department that led us to seeking this relief from the Board today but also how the current interpretation in the Building Department is a little bit different from the way the front lot line was interpreted in 2000 during the Moller case when it was before this Board at that time. First what I'd like to do since it is a front yard setback from a paper road and the configuration is a little bit unusual I do just want to try to orient the Board a little bit before I start my presentation. Old Cove Rd. is not a open public road. It is a paper road only. Physically this is what the road looks like. This is sort of looking up towards Vanston Rd. from the bay so in this picture the Fisher's property is over here behind this hedge row and this is the neighbor on the right hand side and this photo this is standing as you come in Vanston Rd. for anyone who visited the site you kind of go in past the sign you're looking down this is the Fisher's existing house and driveway, the neighbors over here. I can leave this here. These are not new photos Vicki they're just enlargements of the photos that were submitted with the application. So when we're talking about you're going to hear me make some references in a minute to the different interpretations of setbacks this is not a situation where Old Cove Rd. is adjacent to the property or is it a situation of a typical right of way that's contained completely inside the property. Old Cove Rd. is split by the southerly (inaudible) so its 24 foot right of way 3 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting basically that provides access for all I think a total of three owners along this quote unquote roadway to get access to their properties and so the southerly half of the road here is shared by Braverman, and Goodale for example on the northerly half of the road is shared by the Fishers so in a second what will be relevant is the fact that I know you can't see it from here but the 33 foot setback that the Building Department references is drawn from the northerly boundary of Old Cove Rd. so this is the interior boundary of the road that's located within the Fisher's property. It's actually the dwelling is actually 45 feet from the southerly property line but that's the center line of Old Cove Rd. if that's not confusing enough I'll continue on. So with everything that I just told in mind the prior owner Moller had filed for a building permit in 1999 for a dwelling addition that was located 30 feet from the southerly lot line so that again is the center line of Old Cove Rd. and at that time the Building Department interpreted the actual property line to be the front lot line so today they're interpreting the northerly boundary which is twelve feet farther into the property as being the front lot line so if you had taken that 30 foot setback from 2000 and referenced it to the interior line of Old Cove Rd. it would have been 18 foot setback relative to what we're doing today. Conversely if you take our setback that we're proposing now relative to the interpretation in 2000 we're actually 45 feet from the front lot line and when we went in here that's what we were sort of anticipating with Mark Schwartz was that we would be asking for 5 feet of relief. We actually talked about the possibility could the house be moved even farther to be 50 fifty feet from the southerly lot line but the problem is that the property slopes upward on the other side you just can't get the house any farther away. It kind of became a moot point in terms of complying because again the Building Department switched up their interpretation a little bit and went with the northerly boundary of Old Cove Rd. so in the context of again we're actually 5 feet farther from the road with the new house than the existing house is now and we'd be 15 feet farther in then the house would have been had Moller renovated and expanded the house in 2000 which they did not so the variance that was granted at that time for the addition it was not constructed. Now with respect to the swimming pool this is where the application got even more interesting as Mike explained it to me as we move the house farther from the southerly lot line as we actually decrease the quote unquote front yard non-conformity we create a new variance for the swimming pool which was permitted in 1989 and has a C. of O. from 1990 because now according to the Building Department's interpretation the swimming pool becomes positioned more squarely in a front yard which as you know is okay on a waterfront lot but only if it meets the principal setback so the swimming pool as it sits now is located 24 feet from the interior line of Old Cove Rd. What's really interesting though is as Leslie just read the Building Department's front yard setback that they state in the application is 36 feet. That 36 feet is to the southerly lot line so that's actually a different front lot line than what was interpreted for the house so I'm not sure exactly how that happened but in my conversation with Mike what I would ask the Board for hoping that you're inclined to grant this relief is to go ahead and call it 24 feet instead March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting of 36 feet because the one thing that Mike said to me was look he said is the town likely to open this road no, but if the town ever did open this road you would want everything that you're about to build and everything on the property to be covered for the maximum conceivable relief that you would ever need so again I don't want to get into a debate over which is the front lot line. It doesn't matter to us. We know that what we're proposing is an improvement over what's there and it's also asking for less relief under either interpretation than the Board granted previously on the property so we're comfortable with what we're asking for but if it's you know however the Board wants to view this we have either a house that's 45 feet and a pool that's 36 or we have a house that's 33 and a pool that's 24 however the Board wants to interpret the relief we're comfortable with it. Not surprisingly the Fishers are not the only property owner along this strip who's been challenged by this paper road. There have been a couple of variances issued in this little neighborhood here which granted front yard setback relief to Old Cove Rd. but most notably very similar but more significant relief was granted to the Braverman property in 2004. That's case 5518 and if you look at the site plan Braverman is up here so they're the first ones in off of Vanston Rd. so Braverman is located literally physically adjacent to Fisher and where Fisher has the northerly half of Old Cove Rd Braverman takes the southerly half of Old Cove Rd. and in that application and I have to say it's not clear to me from the map that was approved at that time which was determined to be the front lot line but the setback relief granted by the Board was actually 6 feet for a new swimming pool. We're asking for either 24 or 33 feet for an existing pool that's had a C of 0 for twenty years and there was a dwelling addition that was granted an 18 foot setback which is almost twice as much relief as we're asking for now for the new house. With respect to the standards in our written application I do provide additional and extensive justification for why we believe the Fisher's request for relief is not substantial. It's not self-created. It's a very unusual situation. It represents the minimum relief necessary. It's actually an improvement over the existing setback. This can't be avoided through some other design scheme as I said as we improve the non-conformity to the house we create non-conformity with respect to an existing legal pool so there's absolutely no way that we could of avoided the Board and it will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or have an adverse impact to the adjacent properties. I don't know if a letter was submitted by the neighbor Gallagher. We did get Mr. Fisher did get some email correspondence from him indicating that he was supportive of the application and would submit a letter to the Board. I don't know if that happened or not but at least if nothing else I think by lack of opposition we know the neighbors don't object to the application and also as I said the Board wrestled with some of these exact same issues previously when the addition was proposed by Moller. Just quickly the Board found that it was an irregularly shaped property where the house was located more than 300 feet from Vanston Rd. which is the physically open road that is nearest to the property and it's well screened from view by the nearby properties which you can see in the photos we 5 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting submitted with the applications. The Board acknowledged it's really not possible to expand at that time in this case to reconstruct without variance and the Board also noted which I thought was sort of the most resounding finding in your prior determination was that the setback relief was not substantial because it represented a 30 foot setback in an area that would otherwise be considered a side yard which I think if you're on this property this really is functions as a side yard it acts as a side yard in every way. Finally with respect to the project's impact on the surrounding physical or environmental conditions as you know this is a waterfront property. We will need approval from the Trustees in the form of a wetlands permit although very little of the proposed work is actually located within a hundred feet of the bay. Although the dwelling is larger it will be shifted a bit farther from Cutchogue Harbor. As a result of the project lot coverage increases by only 2% and will stay at 12.4. One of the reasons for that is around the swimming pool there is an existing deck. It's a legal deck. It was C.O.'d at the same time the pool was in 1990 but we're getting rid of that deck and putting in a smaller by a hundred square feet or I had the number in the application a smaller on grade masonry patio that also pulls itself I think at least about five feet farther from the Harbor. Right now the septic system on the property is located on the waterside of the house. We're going to remove that. We're going to install a septic system on the landward side of the house. We're proposing a 2,160 square foot buffer in place of existing lawn area and of course in addition to providing new drainage system of drywells we're going to propose a swimming pool drywell for the pool that is existing there now. We anticipate that something the Trustees typically require when a pool was built a long time ago and no one was requesting things like pool drywells. So overall it's a little bit of a complicated case based on the interpretations but we think it's a good project. It was very well thought out. Mark has designed really a beautiful house that's located as far from this paper road as can be and it really represents an improvement over what's there and also regardless again of interpretation we're asking for less relief than was granted to this property previously so we're hoping you'll view the application favorably. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you know I just went through my paperwork and we do have a letter from the Gallaghers. ROB HERRMANN : Oh great. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Robert and Noreen Fisher (inaudible) signed by Ronald and Marilyn Gallagher yea. Just one question the LWRP you have a copy of that? ROB HERRMANN : I don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't? Let me make sure you do have one. Here you go. It says that its recommendation is that the less than 50 foot front yard setback is consistent because of the parcel size and configuration there's little ability to relocate the dwelling to meet the o March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting required setback. He's talking about the in-ground swimming pool as inconsistent and maybe you just want to take a quick minute to take a look at this. I think the second page is the explanation really. ROB HERRMANN : Yea just skimming it quickly I'm not sure if maybe Mark doesn't realize that the pool is existing. I'm not sure. In other words we're not this is not a proposal for a new swimming pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it says existing right on there. You've got it labeled as existing pool. ROB HERRMANN : Then I can't make sense of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I'm not sure whether Mark saw it but it's a legally existing pool and was previously granted the non-conforming location so I don't see where that would go away. ROB HERRMANN : Yea no and again the only reason that we need relief for the swimming pool is because we're decreasing the pre-existing non-conformity of the house. So in other words it would be I would go as far as say it would be irrational for somebody to object to the variance to maintain a swimming pool when the variance is only created as an administrative result of improving another non-conformity on the property. If we were proposing to replace the swimming pool or we were proposing to build a new swimming pool I could see how you know he might want to at least have that conversation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He was wondering what was going on with the top of the bluff line more than anything else but I just wanted to give you an opportunity in the record to address the Board. ROB HERRMANN : Yea well for the record I mean with respect to the top of the slope as I mentioned just at the end of the presentation the structural deck that's there is coming out. It's being replaced with an on grade masonry patio which as a you know with respect to buildable land first of all it reduces lot coverage that's closest to the quote unquote bluff on the bay. We increase the setback by five feet because we're pulling that patio five feet farther away from the harbor than the existing deck is and as I said I think in the application there's a couple of changes, the configuration of the patio relative to the deck that also takes about a hundred square feet or so away so the deck is being replaced with a patio that's smaller and farther from the water than what's there otherwise there is no active proposal even related to the swimming pool. Swimming pool was permitted in 1989. It's had a C. of O. since 1990. I really don't know where you would go with the swimming pool even if you were going to replace it but we're not so it's really not an issue. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay any questions from the Board? MEMBER HORNING : I wondered if Rob knew whether or not a wetlands permit was required back in when the pool was built. I mean that seems to be the reason that it's sited as being inconsistent. ROB HERRMANN : Yea the I know that the Trustees took jurisdiction over the bays in the late eighties and I'm not sure exactly when the building permit for the swimming pool was submitted but I think it was 1989 so it may be right around that time so I don't know whether a wetlands permit was even required for the pool at that time. Certainly there was no the introduction of the idea of the bluff crest setbacks certainly came in Chapter 275 quite a ways after that so that I don't know. I do know even from obviously you know that I appear before the Trustees quite often even when a property is changing hands for example George and somebody says well you know we have some structure that was built prior to the time that a Trustees permit was needed and now we're coming in to get sort of after the fact or as built structure it has been the LWRP coordinator's practice to determine those proposals to be inconsistent not for any reason having to do with substance but just because we don't have a permit and so the Trustees will often say well they're coming in now asking for a permit so we (inaudible) a permit that would resolve that problem. Again it seems like Mark here has other actual (inaudible) issues that would be I think more appropriate if this were a proposed swimming pool as opposed to what turns out to be this sort of ancillary administrative relief that's required because of action we're taking with the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken you had a question? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I have a question. Can you describe the character of Old Cove Rd. specifically at the setbacks of issue? ROB HERRMANN : Actually I'd ask the Fishers to do that because they live there and they know the area best I mean with respect to the area of where we're asking for the relief that is I think you have that photo up there I mean basically this is an area that dips down and there's naturally occurring vegetation in there I'm not calling it native vegetation cause there's a lot of invasive stuff in there but this is basically an area that is very overgrown. There's a tall hedge line that runs along the Fisher's property and there's other screening on the neighbor's property. It seems like all those houses kind of tend to screen themselves from that area is that I don't know Noreen do you have anything you'd want to add to that. NOREEN FISHER : I'm Noreen Fisher one of the co-owners of the property. This portion of Old Cove Rd. where we're trying to get relief is actually a very steep gully and it has on both sides of it retaining walls sort of terraced retaining walls to keep it stable and the only it's about one March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting man's size wide you can walk down there with one person in front one person in back and walk a kayak down there if you so choose. The only people we've ever seen using it are our neighbors the two neighbors on our south side who do bring down their row boat and their kayaks for the summer season. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So it wouldn't clearly be used for any vehicles or NOREEN FISHER : No the Gallaghers for those of you who had come see the property the Gallaghers built they are the only house that is further towards the bay than us but they built their own driveway that parallels Old Cove that portion of Old Cove Rd. so there is no dwelling that requires access from that stretch. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh the point I was trying to get across is it's more ravine like and very restrictive to for access. Would you agree with that? NOREEN FISHER : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so to call it a road is by far a stretch. ROB HERRMANN : Exactly and that was why as I mentioned in the prior determination I forget exactly the language that the Board uses but it says here it is grant the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The property is a large irregular shape waterfront parcel with minimum frontage on Vanston Rd. and almost six hundred feet on Old Cove Rd. a twenty four foot right of way which provides access to the applicant's property and one other lot southwest of Old Cove Rd. I think the Fishers have told me it would be two other properties but no you're exactly right and that was maybe I didn't convey the point as much as I'd hope to. This is not an area that's ripe for opening as a road. It's not practical or ripe for use of road there's no vehicular access going down here. There aren't neighborhood families you know that are sort of going and you know parking their car on the road here in front of what's going to be the house. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I just wanted to make that clear cause that's very important I believe. ROB HERRMANN : No I appreciate it and I mean that is sort of the underpinning of this case and that's why I wanted to draw your attention to those photos and Noreen's description I think is good. It really it is what it looks like. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Very good thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you have any questions? March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I don't I think that pretty much sums it up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can we make it brief George? MEMBER HORNING : Yea I will. Old Cove Rd. the homeowners told me they own to the center of the road is that right? ROB HERRMANN : The road runs over the properties themselves. So if you open the road you would take twelve feet of the Fisher's property and twelve feet of the Gallagher's property and that would be your road. MEMBER HORNING : So it's a private right of way. ROB HERRMANN : As we understand that's a hundred percent correct. MEMBER HORNING : You mentioned they had property on Vanston and on here it's hard to tell on the survey cause I don't see any property on Vanston. ROB HERRMANN : No it's not physically on Vanston no. MEMBER HORNING : No right so would you say then there's actually seemingly because of the shape of the property there's like a two front yards one on the portion of Old Cove Rd. where their driveway comes in on that stretch and then alongside the property which the Building Department is also calling a front yard seemingly like two front yards? ROB HERRMANN : I believe that's the interpretation but honestly you'd have to verify that with Mike Verity. MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6928— ELIZABETH and GUS MANTIKAS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Elizabeth and Gus Mantikas # 6928. This is a request for Variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 18, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the minimum code required front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) more than the code maximum allowed lot coverage of 20% located at 1090 Circle Drive (corner Aquaview Ave) in East Marion. Good morning Mike. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning Michael Kimack for the applicants Gus and Elizabeth Mantikas. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this looks like a front yard setback at 32 feet from the Aquaview and 31 feet from Circle Drive where the code requires minimum of 35 feet and lot coverage of 22.6%the code permits a maximum of 20%. MIKE KIMACK : That is correct. The lot coverage at the present time is 18% and the applicants are requesting to exceed the 20% minimum by 2.6%. The property does have two front yards. It had basically been given a ZBA approval back in 1981 for essentially what is proposed to be demolished and pretty much in the same footprint place constructed a two story addition to the main house. That is off of Circle Drive side. The front yard basically is less than the 50 feet however if I can bring your attention to the permit that was issued which is 2910 they basically allowed it the front yard to be less than the 50 feet because it was an average of the neighborhood itself a minimum neighborhood itself at that time. The house was constructed along those lines. As far as the side yard was concerned the same permit allowed the setback to Circle Drive to be no less than 30 feet. The new proposed setback is a little bit stronger than that 31.7 feet off of Circle Drive so the application or the request for variance certainly does not exceed and is less than the original one granted for the permit in 1981 from Circle Drive setback and the front yard even though less than 50 feet the addition is no closer to the front yard because it's a skewed piece of property than the existing house is and you can see the 50 foot line going across it. The intent is to take down that one story structure and the big deck on the .'0000. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting Circle Drive side construct a two story and then combine it with the existing house second story and convert the outside aesthetic look into a double Dutch colonial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just writing notes that's all. So the second the two story new addition on the Circle Drive side is going to then be attached to the existing two story section of the house? MIKE KIMACK : Yes and it's all bedrooms up at the second story. They're connected to the bedrooms at which is over the existing structure which roof is going to be removed and reconfigured into a double Dutch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Just if you could speak to the character of Circle Drive what's it consist of I see the survey says dirt road. MIKE KIMACK : It's a driveway going back down Ken to the house back in there basically. It is a dirt road yes and there's a house set way back basically. Mr. Mantikas have been granted approval for the back yard pool which is in existence at the present time. It's not a very large lot and the Health Department had approved the septic system at that time but the Circle Drive he's not on the water there's houses in front of him on one side and on the other side of Circle Drive probably about a hundred a hundred and fifty feet away on that particular side but the other house is set way back on Circle Drive. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING : None at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've all been out there and this Circle Drive MIKE KI MACK : Did my two signs stand up? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We found it. Yea it's there's just an accessory garage actually across Circle Drive near the subject property and you know there's a lot of bramble and there's a great 'J. 1111r. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting deal of undeveloped wooden area there. Okay is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Come to the mic and state and spell your name for us. TIMOTHY MILANO : Good morning I'm Timothy Milano. This is my sister Susan Milano. SUSAN MILANO : And along with our mother Nancy Milano we own 780 Aquaview, 745 Aquaview, 410 Aquaview, 845 Aquaview and 670 Circle Drive. Our property abuts the their property line in the back on CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you just try and talk into the mic a little bit more thank you very much. It's being recorded so SUSAN MILANO : Oh okay is that better. Okay so our property line is in the rear by the pool area that borders on the property what our concern what our number one concern is the parking which is a problem as the house is now with eight bedrooms that it has now with their proposed eleven bedrooms I can't even imagine it's a small narrow road on this bucolic setting and we are afraid with the extra bedrooms it's going to bring in a lot more cars and the parking is not is just not working right now even with the smaller house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay perhaps their agent could address your concerns. MIKE KIMACK : There is an underground parking area. I'm looking at it I believe it's a two car at the present time that is part of the new construction at the lower level. Yes two car garage primarily it's a lone driveway down it comes across the back there probably about off the road my estimate would be probably a hundred and twenty five feet coming down off of that I don't know obviously the kind of usage that the Mantikas's are expecting for the property and when and how many people are going to be there at any given time. It is a number of bedrooms I agree with that but he should have enough he should have enough off site off road parking for you know five to six cars along the driveway if you wanted to stack them up off the road. I mean he's not going to be on Circle Drive. He's got a long enough driveway of his own to get him off the road. Would the concern be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this an eleven bedroom house that's being proposed? TIMOTHY MILANO : Can I address the Board in reference to Circle Drive? First of all it's a right of way that was set most of it is a paper road. That road going back to the house which my mother has is not Circle Drive. There's only a portion of maybe fifty feet that's Circle Drive. The paper road runs past an old workshop and then joins to the other side of the block so that road that runs down to the open field which we own is not Circle Drive. The fact of the matter is with the existing house it is a parking problem where they park right up to the driveway which is access to the house in back so you cannot see cars coming from the right side. In the summer it's a March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting well-traveled road. There's many people walking up and down that. If you were to visit the site you would determine that area cannot sustain a house with that many bedrooms. I can only imagine what it would be like with eleven bedrooms conceivably with double beds so that's twenty two people in addition to a den and a so called chapel which has a closet in it which could be construed as a bedroom. The other issues which don't exactly pertain to this is the fence that's currently in the front of the house is on town property so there isn't enough room on the street. The other thing is the pool is three feet over the line onto our the fence is on our property. In addition to that MEMBER DANTES : The pool or the pool fence? TIMOTHY MILANO : The pool fence. SUSAN MILANO : (inaudible away from microphone) MEMBER DANTES : It looks like more towards the (inaudible) TIMOTHY MILANO : In addition to that according to our information there is no C.O. on the current structure of the deck. The other thing is there's two fences that are running alongside Circle Drive, one is on his property the (inaudible) fence is on property of the easement. MEMBER HORNING : Could I ask you for to mark on here your property. TIMOTHY MILANO : We have one here that's marked. We're the larger main land holder in the area. MEMBER HORNING : Right but I mean CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the adjacent lot that you're talking about that you access off of Circle Drive is that undeveloped that's the wooded parcel? TIMOTHY MILANO : That's undeveloped yes that's undeveloped. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause we did all go out there and view the property in the neighborhood. We drive around (inaudible) check them out in the field before we have a public hearing. TIMOTHY MILANO : So I'm sure if you visited you would find that the houses running along Aquaview Ave. really don't have much access in front for parking and so forth so again it's a problem now I can't imagine what it would be with all the additional bedrooms so it's our thought that this would adversely affect the neighborhood and we respectfully submit our request for a denial. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can require that the applicant move the fence to their own property. TIMOTHY MILANO : Well that doesn't clear the issue of all the other parking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So your concern is two-fold the fence location and the parking proposed parking. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can't we restrict it to on-site parking? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I mean that's what they're asking for I think is on- site parking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They can figure out how to put TIMOTHY MILANO : If they can figure out how to put you know thirty cars on their property SUSAN MILANO : Yea we wouldn't have issue aside from those two CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well even on Aquaview I don't think anybody's really parking on the road. Mostly they're pulling in off of the road into an accessory garage or driveway (inaudible). SUSAN MILANO : And with the fence that is actually on the Town of Southold's property it's impossible it's narrower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You'd be parked right on the edge. SUSAN MILANO : Exactly. MEMBER DANTES : Leslie can I make some corrections. As far as the way I'm counting on the floor plan that I have from Mark Schwarz he has eight labeled bedrooms. MIKE KI MACK : I was going to make that correction yes. MEMBER DANTES : Right but I have it right in front of me however he has two I think you're allowed to have kitchen, a dining room, a living room and a den and then a sitting room one sitting room he has two sitting rooms so that would bring the actual number of bedrooms up to nine. TIMOTHY MILANO : Well then if you consider there's a chapel which has a window and a closet which conceivably could be a bedroom. MEMBER DANTES : You're right so there's ten is the chapel a legal size to be a bedroom nine by twelve yea that'll work. 00 5 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nine by twelve is a habitable space. MEMBER DANTES : So that's ten okay. TIMOTHY MILANO : So like I don't think there's anybody on Aquaview Ave. that has a house with that many bedrooms. MIKE KIMACK : Well they're existing seven bedrooms now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There are seven now? MIKE KI MACK : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : My question for Mr. Kimack is would your applicant be willing to put the fence on his property and would he be willing to create enough parking for five spots? MIKE KIMACK : That would be a reasonable request but to point out you're absolutely right Eric in terms of the number of bedrooms. If you look at page A-1 basically right now at the bottom over there existing first floor plan, existing second floor plan you'll see that there are seven bedrooms at the present time and there would be eight bedrooms with a sitting room that is proposed so it's not a big increase in the number of bedrooms. TIMOTHY MILANO : Well we consider it eleven bedrooms if you consider that those could be occupied and a chapel with a closet livable space can be considered as a bedroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well obviously what will have to happen here is the septic system is going to have to be sized for the number of bathrooms and so on and so forth so that's department of health and they will insure that however number of bedrooms they determine is to be there that would be taken care of that way but it's perfectly reasonable to indicate that parking must be on site and that they have to create I would say more than five spaces six spaces at minimum. MEMBER GEOHRINGER : I wouldn't even say spaces I would just say all cars have to be kept on site. He can take the fence down in front and he'll have to park them perpendicular to MIKE KIMACK : That would be a reasonable request. The system in the ground is a brand new system approved by the Health Department. I would suggest I hadn't had a part of that but I would suggest probably developed in accordance with the number of bedrooms that he had submitted to the Health Department on the plans. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : By the way I did park along the road for a very short period of time and I parked right no one was getting out of the passenger side I pulled right up. I have a relatively smaller car and it was questionable okay. However what's not questionable is that March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting there is a portion on the front lawn of the property that you could park cars also and I did observe that parking area down below is extremely limited with some things decorative things that are basically disrupting the parking. They should be removed and whatever parking can be done controlled down below should be controlled down below. That's just an opinion. MIKE KIMACK :That's a reasonable request. TIMOTHY MILANO : The other thing you have to consider I don't know when you visited the site but MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The other day. TIMOTHY MILANO : Okay. In the summer the area doubles because most of those houses are seasonal rentals or weekends and so you have people visiting, you have that road filled with people and that road is the only access there's no sidewalks so it's a lot crowder more crowd in the summer so that's something to consider as well. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I am aware of that. MEMBER DANTES : Just so you're aware it's part of the code it really isn't permitted to do weekend rentals anymore I think it's a two week now. TIMOTHY MILANO : I'm just saying ancillary people. I'm not saying we rent or that there's people out there. There's a bed and breakfast down the road. A.T.A. KIELY : I just want to note for the record regarding parking that the code says you can't have any more than four parking spots in the front yard okay so when you're trying to come up with a plan on MIKE KI MACK : It's got to be beyond the front yard building. A.T.A. KIELY : Yea you can only have up to four in the front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they have two front yards that makes it a little problematic. You're going to have to find spaces for a couple more someplace other than the existing driveway. MIKE KI MACK : Do we do eight or do we two and two? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's not given the proposal it is not at all unreasonable to require parking on site and even if the fence is removed to the subject property the shoulder the right of way that will then be created probably should not be used exclusively for the families parking. That should remain clear and open. Parking should be on their property. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Can we grant them relief from the (inaudible) parking spaces? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not without advertising. They have to re-notice it we have to then put that down as a different variance. A.T.A. KIELY : The code only says that you have to hold two spaces per dwelling so we're going to go above and beyond that in this case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well primarily because it would appear that we don't know if there are children, individuals we don't know who's going to be living in those bedrooms, we don't know how many cars we can't automatically assume x number of cars. We can simply require that all parking be on site per town code. MIKE KIMACK : I agree I mean it would be difficult under any circumstances to anticipate the kind of usage any of these places are going to have. I mean it's a family place. It's for the family. He's got a big family. The expectation would be that perhaps might come in mass in a number of same cars or they may come individually no one knows but that's true of any of the applications that come before you. MEMBER DANTES : I was there and it looked like they were doing some excavation in the back yard. Did they already put a septic system in? MIKE KIMACK : Septic system was in. They might be doing some additional work on it. TIMOTHY MILANO : What they did was the septic was under the pool in violations they had to move it prior to this. MEMBER HORNING :They moved the pool. TIMOTHY MILANO : They moved the septic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They moved the septic system. TIMOTHY MILANO : The other issue is still the fence in some of the pool area is on our property which has to be removed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application anything else from the Board? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBE GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6929— NEIL STRONSKI and PATRICIA PEREZ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Next application before the Board is for Neil Stronski and Patricia Perez. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A and Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 22, 2015 Amended January 14, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to legalize "as built" additions/alterations and accessory structures and construct additions/alterations to the existing "as built" accessory structures at 1) the proposed and "as built" accessory construction is less than code required setback of 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) "as built" deck addition is less than the code required setback of 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 3) "as built" deck addition located at less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 7125 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. Mike let me give you this LWRP. We have a letter from Soil and Water and we have a letter from the LWRP coordinator for you. We have an as built deck at twenty feet from the top of the bluff where the code requires one hundred foot minimum and a side yard setback from an as built deck at thirteen feet where the code requires fifteen feet and then we have a what is this top of the bluff seaward of the bluff yea it's actually over the bluff yea this was complicated. MIKE KIMACK : That's why I structured the application the way I did and that's why if you look in here you'll see I gave you a complete description of what is and what was proposed. There are two maps here. One of the existing because it was a little bit confusing exactly what is there presently and then one of the proposed after that I'm looking through I mean in essence the jurisdiction basically from the top of the bluff and the definition of the top of the bluff I know is in this particular case Damon basically used the top of the retaining walls (inaudible) top of the 004. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting bluff even though it was a manmade structure that's what he I think we chose to do. The proposed project I think one of the consistencies was the as built deck which had been there had been actually looking back had been approved prior but had been removed and replaced so it was as built without a permit basically but there had been a deck there before and it had been removed and put back. The retaining wall the expectation here is to take the two landward retaining walls remove them and build a more seaward retaining wall thereby moving the bluff back a little bit further and then removing a lot of that structure going down the hill basically and actually reconfiguring the staircase going down the hill. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you been before Trustees yet or you're going? MIKE KI MACK : I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you been before the Trustees yet with this or are you going to? MIKE KI MACK : No. I have to after you. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Well there are other retaining walls, there are other structures along the top of the bluff in this neighborhood but I haven't I went on a number of properties legally or otherwise but I went on them and they are very this is like the great wall of China what's going on over there. MIKE KIMACK : I recognized it when I was brought into when I first looked at it there was an awful a lot going on down there and it had been built out over a number of years and when the people bought it obviously they bought it with all of this in place. A lot of it has reached the point where it has aged out. If you're looking at the drawing taking it forward the bulkhead is a relatively new bulkhead and that's been permitted. That's really an issue. And then you got that first deck off the bulkhead then a series of stairs up from there and then a second deck which is on top of an underground storage area and there's that second retaining wall that first retaining wall up from the bulkhead basically and there's a storage area underneath that basically which the deck basically goes across the top of and then we've got that whole other wood deck area where the two staircases come down into it. We're proposing to remove that completely. Remove the center staircase completely and then restructure the staircase on the northern side over there and bring it back down you see that wood wall over there I don't know you probably when you went out I'm not quite sure if you saw it it looked like a turret that's going to be removed. We have no idea what that is but and I have no idea what the function of use of it was and when it was built. It's not in bad shape. I did have the Trustees out there for a pre-application walk through to get a feel from them. They didn't know what to make of it and they said take it down and the applicants were we're fine with that. It's not going to be an easy March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting take. It's filled with dirt all the way up to the top so I'm not quite sure exactly what its function was but it will be removed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are there legal permits for all of this? MIKE KIMACK : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why in the world do you need so many levels of decking? I mean you have one deck already that's a twenty foot setback from the top of the bluff where a hundred is required. The views do not change. MIKE KIMACK :The views do not change. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why do you have to have so many steps and so many levels of decking? MIKE KIMACK : Well in essence that step in the middle over there is being removed that staircase here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see I mean we do have the existing and the proposed. MIKE KIMACK : Yea the only way I could do it basically that whole staircase is coming out along with the deck that goes down to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but I'm looking at what you're proposing okay and you know there's two retaining walls and there's structures including storage structures that are seaward of that you know landward bulkhead so how do you justify having so much you know coverage and so many hardened structures that close and sitting on top of a bluff. MIKE KIMACK : Well the basic thing is that they had been constructed it had been there for many years although albeit without the permits basically. We would propose basically ending up with a new retaining wall taking two retaining walls out and then pushing back more seaward with that retaining wall the top of the bluff basically. The other retaining walls that are there are simply holding back the structures I mean holding back the slope. Those are structurally in place. Those are not aesthetic at all. I mean it's a fairly steep slope in there. That first one up from the bulkhead is about six or eight feet high and it runs pretty much all the way from that one deck which is right off the bulkhead all the way to the property line and then as you step up there's that intermediate retaining wall that's there that we propose then to tie into and bring in complete bulkhead a brand new retaining wall across. The thing is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All I'm doing is looking on the survey to see where the top of the bluff is and virtually everything is seaward other than the deck. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Everything is seaward other than the deck and everything would be seaward from the new retaining wall also primarily. We would be moving you can see what we're taking out. We're taking out that set of staircase and that lower deck there. The staircases on the northern side over there would be restructured. That would be the main staircase down and granted it does go down to that one deck which is off of the bulkhead and then it steps up to that existing wooden deck which basically is on top of the open storage area underneath it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a question? MIKE KIMACK : Sure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Do you have a marine engineer developing this thing so that we know what we have here? I mean I would think that that would be the first way to go and then take it to the Trustees because if you if there's any disruption of any slope here you're going to lose a portion of this house. I mean this is so steep it's unbelievable I mean this you need engineer plans on this I mean I couldn't I'm not you know certainly I'm not an engineer I mean but I mean it's unbelievable how steep this slope is. MIKE KIMACK : Actually it's not that steep. I disagree with you in terms of the engineer on this when you've got two upper retaining walls now that have been there for forty, fifty years. They have survived a lot of storms. They're not they were that well-constructed to begin with. The one that's the idea is to take those two out the two dotted ones and put another retaining wall there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : But the engineer the retaining wall to hold back what's there okay is the reason why you need engineering in my opinion. I'm not speaking for the Board I'm speaking for myself okay. I've been going to Nassau Point for thirty six years looking at stuff and this is the steepest one I've seen. MIKE KIMACK : You may find this a little bit hard but I mean I've designed these. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I understand that. MIKE KIMACK : And they haven't fallen down yet and they're not about to. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'm not telling you no I'm not saying that they would okay but you never know with this crazy weather we're having. CHAIRPERSO WEISMAN : We just gave you Soil and Water as well as LWRP and essentially Mike what they're recommending you know the Soil District technician is recommending she's indicating that demolition of the existing decks, stairs and landings may have an adverse effect on the bluff face therefore we recommend contacting the the Jay Tanski Coastal Processes March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting Specialist of NY Sea Grant in Stony Brook she's got a phone number and e-mail who can provide you with suitable options for this site. I must admit that these constructions are really large proposals. The deck we can understand how to deal with the upper deck it's a twenty foot bluff setback which is very substantial when you consider where the house is located okay I can understand the need for that maybe patio would of sufficed but it's not in a high velocity zone but I do think it's probably a good idea to do two things. One is to contact this guy and see what they have to say and let that be part of our record and part of your consideration and secondly to get some comments from the Trustees on this before we close it. MIKE KIMACK : Well I had the Trustees out and their only concern at that time they would not come and to be fair to the Trustees they're not gonna bring up the issue they're not going to tell you what they would do they may tell you what they don't want to do and one of those was obviously to take out the turret like thing. The existing retaining walls have been there for some time. They're generally structurally sound. They do need some repair work along the way. Retaining wall that would replace I can contact this individual and work with him in terms of the design of it but I can tell you that we can design a retaining wall (inaudible) in there. I think the question then fell back is to the number of wood decks that are in place. Albeit the one that is landward that's a different issue but the two the three existing ones one of which we're taking down two which are existing the one above the storage area we propose to cut back to less than two hundred square feet on top of that and it does meet the requirements for (inaudible) cause once we pull that in each one of those landings are less than a hundred square feet which is the requirement of the Trustees basically and each of the decks are less than two hundred square feet that would be remaining which is the also the Trustees requirement. So in essence we're kind of like staying on the north side with a series of steps down to up to one deck over the storage area and down to another deck off of the bulkhead and then building and probably going back we have to rebuild the staircase and probably go back and take a look at each of the existing retaining walls to see whether or not they're structurally sound. I think for the most part when I looked at them they generally are. There are some places that they need a little bit of work on them but not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see if the Board has any comments. Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Yes looking at picture number three and from my site inspection looks like there are two electrical meters does the house have an apartment inside of it? MIKE KI MACK : No not that I'm aware of. MEMBER DANTES : Then why do they have two electrical meters? MIKE KIMACK : I can't answer the question at the time Eric I don't know. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Can you like submit something in writing? MIKE KIMACK : I can basically. It's a one family home. MEMBER DANTES : Okay I'm just curious why and my other question is looking at the plans do they have a plan for the storm water management for the home like leaders and gutters and drywells in place or is that something that they'd look at? MIKE KIMACK : On the existing home it was approved it has it's C. of O's on the existing home. Whatever might be there in terms of storm water management had already been it might not of been processed on the original permit. I don't know I'll take a look. I quite frankly didn't focus on that. Most of my attention was seaward of the retaining walls because when I looked back at the C. of O.'s that had already been the existing dwelling had been approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea. The LWRP was looking at maybe getting the VE Zone indicated on the survey and speaking of the bulkheads here it's a little confusing because there's so many of them going on here but if we look starting at the easterly location the first bulkhead we see is the one that is at the water's edge. MIKE KIMACK :That the bulkhead yes. Yes Ken. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And then as we move westerly we come upon another bulkhead and that bulkhead also is the wall structure for the under area deck storage? MIKE KIMACK :That is correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so that bulkhead actually wraps around the interior of that storage area? MIKE KIMACK : It basically it wraps around the backside of it MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The backside of it MIKE KIMACK : and then comes up and on that wood deck side it comes right around that one wood deck side on the if you go to the southern side of that line and you bring it north right past the wood deck underneath that wood deck is a storage area you're absolutely right that wraps around the back of it. That storage is about twelve and a half foot one end to the other and I think in about maybe eight or nine feet deep. MEMBER SHCNEIDER : So the back walls of that storage is bulk headed. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And then the bulkhead heads northerly as the back wall of that shed area MIKE KIMACK : And then it goes back east again along that wood MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And then it goes back like a forty five? MIKE KIMACK : Yea by that wood deck basically right. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And then it jogs back and forth and does it where does it end? Does it die somewhere along it's just a little bit confusing I mean MIKE KIMACK : (Away from microphone) The area under the deck you (inaudible) look at it being the storage area. MEMBER SCHNEDIER : Okay and then there's another series of bulkheads which steps up the bluff. MIKE KIMACK : Yes there's that next one and then there's the one we propose let me see yea there's the one there's three others that step up the bluff that are interconnected basically. It's the top two that we would be taking out and primarily because of the condition of them and also because we want to extend the top of the bluff to give them a little bit more space at the top of the bluff and also you can see that retaining wall we propose as it comes down Ken to the south boundary line there it then goes westerly along the property line and the reason it does is that if you walked up there you'll see that the land drops this way. By doing the retaining wall then we can level off MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Level off. MIKE KIMACK : and get more level area for them on that one side. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : for access. MIKE KIMACK : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay there's a lot going on there. MIKE KIMACK : There's a lot going on there that's why I gave you the information as I gave it to you because I understood that this was a lot to absorb and a lot had happened over a period of time. I think what the Board is saying is to me is contact the individuals here to see whether they're looking at it from a structural point of view and the I think what the thing is is the 5 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting protection of the slope. In essence what is there basically and what is there keep in mind it has in fact lived through a lot of storms because those structures have been there for at least forty, fifty years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the question is it's not a lot coverage issue but the question is they're going away some of it will be retained and repaired obviously you need bulk heading there for sure with the least soil disturbance possible but you know one wonders about the necessity for the replacement even with removal of so many things that were never legal to begin with. I mean this is really extensive. You've got storage on the beach literally underneath a deck MIKE KI MACK : I know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and I understand why people want these things but the question is are they a necessity? Is it a water dependent use? The LWRP says no. It's a very large proposal okay and you're not doing a replacement in you know something that was that has a Pre C.O. on it so I want to be careful going forward that we don't set a precedent for these kinds of major multi leveled, multi bulk headed structures that are hardening the bluff with very very little setback. In fact all of this stuff is seaward of the top of the bluff for the most part other than the attached deck to the dwelling so how about we do this let's adjourn this so you can contact this expert. See what comments they have. Consider what we just said and perhaps discuss it with your clients. I think it would be reasonable to get some comments if the Trustees are willing to since they've already gone and done a site inspection. We could have the office request comments from them and then we'll see where we go from there Mike. MIKE KIMACK : Okay and I would say that I know how difficult these decisions are for the Board especially when you harden the slope but basically this has been a hardened slope for some time and there are conditions upon which a hardened slope is much more superior to trying to do it under natural conditions and it's much more durable and lasting. You can't construct a hardened slope so that it could withstand anything that the bulkhead can take in going forward on a storm. This has been in place for some time. I think I'll work with the individuals but trying to go back and take these out or try to take them and convert it into a slope would be probably more far more damaging to the slope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would think to the bulkheads yes definitely. MIKE KIMACK : And also the retaining walls that are in place have been there structurally in place for some time. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Those are structural things and I totally understand what you're saying and would agree with less soil disturbance, the less bluff disturbance the better that's where I guess this expert MIKE KI MACK : Let me get some feedback from some individuals. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To me it's not so much those structures which are in fact in some way stabilizing that bluff. It's all the other decks. Stairs I understand you need them to get down to the beach but you know why you need two decks and a storage area on the beach you know beats me especially when you're already asking for a deck that's twenty feet attached to the house twenty feet from the top of the bluff. MIKE KIMACK : I knew coming in that that would be one of your concerns and I will take it up with my clients basically to see if we can I'll contact the individuals and get some feedback to you and if you can contact the Trustees although albeit two of the Trustees are no longer there who that had done the site visit so I mean you got three remaining. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine we'll contact Jay you know John Bredemier and see if he can provide us with some feedback anything else from the Board? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I think you merited it pretty well. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Mike just a suggestion I don't know if it's a lot of extra work but if this was color coded a little bit like bulkheads to remain, retaining walls to remain and maybe new. MIKE KIMACK : Yea I can basically I did that summary sheet basically as to what was existing MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I'll look at that again. MIKE KIMACK :Take a look at it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's in there someplace but it's just not on the survey. MIKE KIMACK : It's not on the survey but I thought it would be helpful to you if I went through and listed everything that was there in terms of the description and the length and then what was proposed to be removed and then what was proposed to be added and if you take a look at that and maybe a little bit more helpful than just looking at the visual of the drawing itself. MEMBER SHCNEIDER : I mean the site inspection along with the survey is like oh man. MIKE KIMACK : That's why I took thirty three photos Ken cause I looked at it and I said this is not a six photo shot in order to get all the angles on this in order to give you the benefit of what all was there from the photo expectation. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I would have to agree that the least amount of disturbance to the bluff would be the best. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Retaining walls and all that is all good. MIKE KIMACK : Yea as long as they're structurally sound and for the most part they are. They're some weak points along the way but for the most part they are. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Mike what we're going to wind up having to do I'm afraid is to adjourn this to May because MIKE KIMACK : It is what it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : we just we have like twelve or thirteen already for April. MIKE KIMACK :That may also be I may need that time in order to contact CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea they don't operate too quickly. MIKE KIMACK : I didn't think so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there's three things we're looking at just to summarize before we adjourn. Our office will contact the Trustees for some written comments as they're able to provide. You're going to contact the Stony Brook expert and third you're going to find out and give us in writing something about why there's two meters on this house. MIKE KIMACK : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that's true too we should also have the VE Zone located on the survey. MIKE KIMACK : We can have that put on yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything else from anyone in the audience? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to May 5th at 9:30 a.m. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6930— MARJORIE ADAMS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Marjorie Adams # 6930. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's December 15, 2015 amended December 22, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool and "as built" accessory shed at 1) proposed in location other than the code required rear yard located at 2895 Eugene's Road in Cutchogue. So this pool is going to be partially in the side yard and the "as built" accessory shed is located in the front yard where the code requires rear yard. This is a three acre lot. The shed is twelve foot by 8.4 feet. Let's see what else I want to say about this. The cesspool is in the rear yard very sloping property it's a large 3.2 acre lot as I said yes there's a scenic easement. Okay let's see what would you like to tell us Mike? MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicant Marjorie Adams. I think you probably (inaudible) fairly accurately if you look at the survey the house is turned to Eugene's Rd. and the septic system is on the high knoll. It's a built up area. They had to fill in because the ground water is relatively high over there and if you walked in the back of the house you'll see that that area where the septic area is raised up. To put the pool anyplace this was the only location and because the house was turned that way inevitably there was going to be a side yard requirement of some sorts. There's just no way to avoid it no matter what configuration plus the fact to the west of that we got the hundred foot setback line for the wetlands for the (inaudible) If look at the hundred foot line from the line itself coming across there so we were the pool itself was within this area it had to be raised up because the water underneath was about two foot down basically so it is a raised pool. We stayed away from the hundred foot wetland buffer and we came off the existing deck off the back and then we also had to stay away from the septic system so it ended up into this one little spot that the pool actually could March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting conceivably be built. There were some additional in that area there was some additional approvals by the Board that I've given you the prior findings here. There were three of them that I've found. The different type of cases approval of constructing in ground pool in front yard the only practical location due to the location of the cesspools and the position of the residence and then approval of constructing in ground pool with deck forward of existing one and half story dwelling and approval to construct in ground pool in other than the side yard so it's not without precedent in the area that they have been granted side yard pools but in this particular case it is a large piece of property and the pool basically is not necessarily going to be visible from really the neighbors because of the amount of land they have around them and the location is somewhat set by the existing structure of the house, the deck and where the septic system is which is the built up area. Any question of me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just one to start with. Frankly I mean you can hardly see that shed there's so much bramble in you know woodland around it but what is it used for and can it be relocated to a conforming rear yard? MIKE KIMACK : You know I asked them whether they wanted to maintain it and they said yes to me. I did not ask them what the function of it was I assume it was simply for storage but you're right it's so far removed just to simply to get there basically but it was afterthought on their part. Can they move it to a rear yard I would imagine it could be, it would have to be function beyond north of the septic systems in order to be considered a rear yard I don't know I hadn't seen the condition I hadn't I didn't walk over to the shed to see what condition it is whether in fact it can be moved you know whether it's in the ground or not but as you had pointed out it's not very large. It's under a hundred square feet. MEMBER HORNING : I calculated 101.64. MIKE KIMACK : Yea pretty close George yea. It's right there. I can ask them. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don't see any reason why you couldn't move it a location it looks like the northwest northeast corner there there's plenty of room. MIKE KIMACK : That would be that Ken would be the only place that would be in conformance you know because it would be a rear yard basically in that particular area. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What is its function in the middle of like a wooded area I mean CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's very strange. You can hardly even see it from the road. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I mean you're not keeping your lawn mower in that. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I don't think it was a rental. I suspect that if they did want to keep it that would not be an unreasonable request. I can see that you would want to minimize or eliminate the variance if it was something that you could do and I cannot argue to the fact that there are alternatives either remove it or to move it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there is a good argument for why it needs to be in a non- conforming location frankly I don't think it's harming anything where it is you know you can't see it, it doesn't but again as you very well know and just stated the Board is obligated to try to reduce non-conformance wherever it's feasible so I suspect that's what we should probably do. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea well the well I see the well is off the driveway so it's not like the little well shed or anything like that. It doesn't have any electric to it. MIKE KIMACK : No, no it would be hard to suggest as to why it was built out there in the first place. It's been there a while I mean it's rather old and I really didn't look inside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well why don't we you know what we could do is give them options and simply say either remove it to a conforming relocate to a conforming location in a rear yard or remove it and let them decide what they want to do. MIKE KI MACK : Let them decide. The pool is their main thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course. MIKE KIMACK : I almost overlooked it as a matter of fact I didn't even see it. It was brought to my attention cause I kept driving in and I said what shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's hard I mean you really have to go looking. It helps to have the survey. MEMBER DANTES : I didn't see it when I was there I didn't know about it till I looked at the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then when you drive out and you look for it there's just because the foliage is not leafed out I mean you can see it but it's really surrounded by woods so you do wonder how you'd even get there without being covered with ticks. MIKE KIMACK : Certainly not in the winter time with high snow. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So the proposed pool along with its decking is going to be raised with a MIKE KIMACK : Yes with a retaining wall. '; March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : With a retaining wall. If you were to conform and put it in a rear yard location how far do you would you estimate that then be from the house the wood deck? MIKE KIMACK : Well if you look at the way the house is structured the septic system keeps you from moving it that way. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well you could move it northerly. MIKE KIMACK : But then I'm into the wetland. I'm into the buffer zone of the wetland. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay I gottcha with your proposed layout. MIKE KIMACK : Yea and I mean and I can't turn it cause I can't swing it that way. The only way I could go off of that deck which is the existing deck that's the way they wanted to actually get to the pool which made the most sense I had that quarter between the septic area on the easterly side and my wetland boundary on the westerly side. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNIING : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6932— MARK COHEN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Mark Cohen # 6932. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 21, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct an addition attaching an existing accessory garage to existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the minimum code required side yard setback of 15 feet located at 820 Old Salt Rd. (adj. to James Creek) in Mattituck. Hi how are you?This looks as though no footprint is going to change it's just going to attach with conditioned space the dwelling to the existing detached accessory garage and use the second floor as a recreational space or some such thing. Is that correct? JOAN CHAMBERS : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me give you a copy of this. This is the LWRP indicating it's exempt use for your records and would you please just state your name for the record. JOAN CHAMBERS : My name is Joan Chambers. I'm working with Mr. Cohen. He wants to convert the second floor of this existing garage. It's already built. It's framed it has subfloor. It doesn't have insulation, sheet rock but it has windows in so he wants to finish the floors put in sheetrock, put in some insulation, some heat and turn it into recreation space basically he's going to put a big screen T.V. up there and turn it into his little home theater. So we propose to attach the existing house to the existing garage without expanding either the house or the garage. The addition it's a breezeway but it's heated so the breezeway isn't actually the technical term for it but it's pretty minimal. It's only three hundred and thirty square feet and we'll swing the front door around so it's now facing the road. I think this pretty well stays within the keeping of the rest of the neighborhood within the six houses you can see from Mr. Cohen's front yard all of them have attached garages with the exception of one which is four houses down to the west and that has a detached garage but it's obviously been converted to recreation space. It's got balconies and French doors and in particular at the very end of this dog leg of Old Salt Rd. at 555 Bay Ave. I think the Teshay residence they have a very big addition connecting their house to their two floor two story garage and it's been converted to habitable space including bedrooms and exercise room so I don't think Mr. Cohen is necessarily asking to do anything that isn't within the absolute keeping of the neighborhood. The Building Department's objection was of course that the existing garage is not doesn't comply with the 33 , March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting side yard setback and because we're changing the use from storage to recreation space it had to be reviewed again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it's sort of a technical review which makes sense because it is a detached accessory structure the actually there was a prior on it. The Board granted in ZBA 5726 on October 20th 2005 the accessory garage location which was acceptable at that time and by attaching it then becomes a different kind of side yard so I think it's more of a technicality. I don't have any questions let's see if anybody else does Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes. I don't have any actual objection to the breezeway or whatever you want to call it the only concern that I have is is there anything larger than just a big screen T.V. going upstairs? JOAN CHAMBERS : That's the plan. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : None of these sophisticated huge things that come down or whatever the case might be. JOAN CHAMBERS : Nope just a large screen T.V. and there's already actually furniture being stores up there so you know they're not intending to. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Because if any noise level exceeds the building people neighbors are going to complain. I mean you have all kinds of water around this and that's the reason why and I'm only raising that issue. JOAN CHAMBERS : I'll bring it to Mr. Cohen's attention. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Most people if they're having an elaborate (inaudible) situation they build a sound screen so basically no noise goes that way. Thank you. JOAN CHAMBERS : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George anything? MEMBER HORNING : No. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6923—GEORGE and LISA HAASE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for George and Lisa Haase # 6923. This is applicant's request for a Special Exception modification under Section 280- 13B(14). The applicant is the owner requesting authorization to expand an Accessory Bed and Breakfast, accessory and incidental to the residential occupancy of this single family dwelling, add an additional two bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to the B&B casual, transient roomers (Making the total five (5) bedrooms). Location of the property is 580 Skunk Lane in Cutchogue. Hi state your name please for the record. LISA HAASE : Hi Lisa Haase with my husband George. We were here three years ago with our three bedroom B&B and we like it so much we want to go to five bedrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've made an interior inspection. You do have enough on -site parking to accommodate both two spaces for your use and five additional ones for the various B&B bedrooms. Let's see if anybody has any questions. Gerry do you have any questions? March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It appears you have plenty of parking as you clearly stated out there and I did take the exit out through the woods. It was very nice and very helpful by the way. LISA HAASE : I think so. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I have to tell you that of all the B&B's I haven't found one blasted thing that I can even talk to you about this is just wonderful. LISA HAASE : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're glad that it's successful and you're floor plan looks absolutely fine I don't see any issues with it. I do have to say there it was a little difficult backing out of the guest space because it's pretty narrow before you hit the tree. MEMBER GEOHRINGER : Not again Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My Lexus has had its bumper replaced three times doing site inspections over the years. GEORGER HAASE : That's actually one of the reasons why we put it because it's even harder when you want to go back out the other way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right it's the only sensible thing to do. George any comment? MEMBER HORNING : No. LISA HAASE : If George needs a place to stay he needs a place. MEMBER HORNING : I almost stayed there last night. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can't do that it's not ethical just kidding anything from anyone in the audience? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is very straight forward. Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6927— LAZARUS ALEXANDROU CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Lazarus Alexandrou # 6927 this is a request for variance from Article XXII Code Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's January 25, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) less than the code required 100 foot setback from top of bluff located at 2700 Sound Drive (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Greenport, Dave would you just enter your name. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Dave Chicanowicz representing Alexandrou. My company is Creative Environmental Design. We designed and laid out this application for you so if there's any questions you may have on this I'm sure I can answer them for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me first give you a copy of the report from Suffolk County Soil and Water that we have and also a copy from the LWRP coordinator those are for you to review and look over. We also received a letter from that was sent to the Trustees from apparently a neighbor it was faxed to the wrong department Notice of Hearing on this but it's come to our attention that the required mailings have not been completed yet have not been done and as a consequence legally we don't really have any jurisdiction over doing anything much with that. They just have to be done it's a public notice and so what we're going to have to do Dave is let you respond to those letters and we're going to have to adjourn until such time as the mailings have been done so that any interested party who may be affected is duly noticed through the legal process and then if they want to appear or write they can. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let's see what we can do here. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Can I just add also that I did have a site visit from the Trustees they already have been at the property I've met them at the property. They found that there is no problems with what we had proposed. We had it staked out exactly the locations March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll have to have that entered into the record at the next hearing. You do need to have Trustees approval obviously on this as well. Do you have an application before them? DAVE CHICANOWICZ : We do and it's pending the approval of this then we go forward with them. We were like kinda got the permits mixed up a bit but anyway we did have a meeting they found no problem with the site as it is. They're non-turf buffer cause this was something going back several years CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry Dave I'm going to have to stop you because we really shouldn't be taking testimony on the application until such time. You're going to wind up repeating it that's all and there's nobody here obviously you know to take advantage of testimony so the question is to adjourn we have thirteen people scheduled for April. I'm trying to see if we can fit you in in April otherwise we'd have to adjourn till May because we're completely full we're completely and totally full. Alright I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to April 78 at 9:15 am. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6931— MICHELLE ROUSSAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is Michelle Roussan # 6931. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 20, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for 3 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting building permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) proposed in location other than the code required rear yard, 2) lot coverage proposed at more than the code maximum allowed of 20% located at 865 Second Street in New Suffolk. Hi Tom would you enter your name into the record please. TOM SAMUELS : Tom Samuels on behalf of Michelle Roussan I'm the architect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is an accessory proposed in the front yard and the lot coverage is 23.7%. TOM SAMUELS : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see the notes say that you're renovating the one story house with the attached garage that's going to become habitable space TOM SAMUELS : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : for more living space and the lot is 0.267 acres 11,671.9 square feet existing lot coverage is 19.68%. There really isn't a rear yard is there? TOM SAMUELS : There's no rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kind of looked around and said no rear yard here to speak of. TOM SAMUELS : Right well the house is in the rear yard. It was originally that garage that we're looking to convert to habitable space was originally the kitchen for IGA market which is next door now is also residential just for historical interest. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that side yard is very very heavily vegetated with TOM SAMUELS : She's a gardener. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : green screening, the front yard property line is heavily vegetated perfectly logical place to locate it. TOM SAMUELS : They would like for that new habitable space to have some kind of access to exterior which isn't right up against the yard line and to get a little bit of light in there plus you know her aesthetic is kind of French she is French and so a gravel courtyard there a protected outside space is kind of aesthetically also what she's looking for so that's why we didn't attach it to the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a 48 foot setback I mean the setback is not an issue at all just the location. 3 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting TOM SAMUELS : It's the fact that it's in a front yard which is or it's in front of the house so I guess you would technically say it's in the front yard it's not really in the yard but it's in front of the house where it's not permitted to be and then of course the percentage of coverage which is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is a one and half car garage. TOM SAMUELS : One and a half cars just eighteen feet wide so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Twelve foot high it looks like right? TOM SAMUELS : Yea it's twelve feet it's you know as minimal as it could be. She wants to put her car there and have a place for her bikes and some gardening stuff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okie dokie Gerry do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I was with the opinion if maybe you can stick a shed in the back yard partially in the side yard partially in the rear yard but it appears that you want it for more than that so TOM SAMUELS : I think we'd have to maintain some kind of a setback. It's such a small lot I guess we only need to maintain three feet for an accessory structure in a rear yard there but it's so tight on the back side there's only like ten feet so it would be extremely tight and she really wants it as a garage more than as a CHAIRPERSON WESIMAN : Shed. TOM SAMUELS : Shed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can it be moved over any farther? TOM SAMUELS : Over in which direction? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well north. TOM SAMUELS : North towards the top of the sheet in other words. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea. TOM SAMUELS : The only reason why she's holding that line I think is for the screening and all the trees and shrubs that are on that side. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea there's a lot of screening there. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting TOM SAMUELS : Doesn't want me to cut down anything basically and I told her we have to cut down something because you have to cut down something but I guess yes you could move it over four feet there towards the neighbor on the north that's physically possible. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Could you speak to her and get back to us if you would move it over. TOM SAMUELS : She's in France right now but I guess I could by e-mail. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry what's the intent here what's to be gained? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well the intent is only the fact that you have more physical view of the house than you would when a garage is gonna cover it up and at the same time with the plantings that are over there you may see less of this garage sticking out. TOM SAMUELS : It would also require then moving the driveway. I mean here we're keeping those two lines so then the driveway would have to go MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well you can use the bay right next to it. TOM SAMUELS : Yea but my point is that it would involve the shifting all of that planting that's on that side as well along maybe not the entire line to the north but enough to be able to maneuver a car in. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Excuse me Tom I didn't mean to cut you off the only reason why I say this I can never remember granting a garage in New Suffolk in the front yard okay that's just something you know there's usually enough room to either get it around the back or whatever the case might be. TOM SAMUELS : Right there is usually I agree there is usually. MEMBER DANTES : Didn't we do one like two years ago? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No we did a shed in the front yard on one of the lots on the First St. there adjacent to the creek. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No there was a garage. You're right Eric there was a substantial garage when you go down to the marina. TOM SAMUELS : Right across the street from this. It's a corner lot so maybe there was some kind of you know which is front and which is side but right across on King and Second there they redid that house completely you may remember the chimney was kind of in tuned it was an interesting project in New Suffolk of course everything is controversial but that's a two story March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting garage right on the street right across her street and so Michelle is like well you know if they can do it I should be able to and I'm like well pending approval from the ZBA yes you can. MEMBER DANTES : No I think we did that variance. TOM SAMUELS : I'm sure there was a variance involved there. There had to of been. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did. There's two there's that one then there's the one down by the marina I think it's off of Orchard possibly. MEMBER HORNING : Wasn't there one the neighbor was a little bit involved new construction CHAIRPERS WEISMAN : There was a flood, flooding all the time TOM SAMUELS : The house on First St. of course if that's what you're talking about oh my God. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There's a red barn that's right over by the on the south side of the marina okay right down next to one of the streets that leads into the back of the TOM SAMUELS : Right yes that's right it's in the front yard that's on Orchard St. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : He was flooded out he has to move it all the way up. It was somewhat controversial but TOM SAMUELS : I think a tree had fallen on his old garage in that case and they had to replace it. Was it controversial? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there are some not a lot but there are some and the bottom line is there is you know you either have to deny a garage or you approve it where you are proposing it because I think the existing buffer speaks well of the reason to allow it to be where you're proposing and you know if she likes the idea of that little courtyard and there's enough breathing room around there then that's her aesthetic purely her own visual decision. TOM SAMUELS : And she's very close friends with the people to the north and the old IGA and I think they have an understanding that this will be screened you know that fourteen feet that I'm showing will make it invisible from the other side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Especially if it's twelve foot high. TOM SAMUELS : It's only twelve feet high. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it's a 48 foot setback so I have no March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Not very big. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No and it's small one and a half car I don't have a problem with it. Eric do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No I don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING : Not related exactly but I wanted to ask about the historic use of the garage again you IGA tell us. TOM SAMUELS : Well the IGA is on the corner of second and King St. and now it's been separated into two residences and I remember it pretty well as a kid you know that there was that market was there and this garage and part of the house used to be part of that parcel or there was maybe a separate parcel but they were a combined use and that garage was the kitchen that they would like roast chickens or whatever they do there for the market next door. That's what Michelle tells me. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You didn't tell the whole story and that was that everything closed on Sunday you couldn't get a thing except if you went to a deli or you went to John's store. He was the only one that seemed to be allowed to open. MEMBER HORNING :That was the IGA? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That was the IGA. TOM SAMUELS : We lived on Nassau Point and my mother would send me over on the Boston Whaler to pull up on Captain Marty's beach and go shopping there I guess on Sunday. I didn't know why she would do that but now that I think about it but it was that was our little store. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : In 1974 they tested the blue laws in Centereach and after that all bets were off everything was open. TOM SAMUELS : Brave new world. MEMBER HORNING : So you had considered attaching it to the house? TOM SAMUELS : We considered yes attaching it to the house. We also considered a second floor but a lot of her ceilings are open cathedral inside and she didn't want and she's in her March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting later sixties and didn't want to have stairs. She likes living on one floor. We talked about attaching it but then it would just completely close off the light from that space except for from the north and the west. On the west side you have a fence right there and the neighbor's house immediately so that's (inaudible) very internal at that point and she wanted to have light coming in from the east and some from the south so this idea of separating it and having a gravel courtyard just appeals I think to MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Nice place to have a barbecue. TOM SAMUELS : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea well okay hearing no further questions or comments there's no one in the audience to address the application so TOM SAMUELS : I've never been here with nobody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6926—CHARLES FOSTER REEVE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Charles Foster Reeve # 6926. This an applicant's request for a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is the owner requesting authorization to establish an Accessory Apartment in an 40, NYb March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting accessory structure located at 626 Front Street in Greenport. Some of us have been to inspect the property go ahead Bruce and enter your name into the record. BRUCE ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicants Reeve and Kramer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any more green cards at all? BRUCE ANDERSON : I wasn't at the office I may have more in the office I will bring them in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so let's see what we have here. We have a letter indicating that C. Foster Reeve's daughter Bridgette is going to occupy the accessory apartment and the building was constructed when 1979? BRUCE ANDERSON : No 1981 I believe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I had a question mark 1981 so that's fine. Now the code says 750 square foot maximum on one story, one bedroom with one full bathroom okay so you've got a copy of Mike Verity's calculation. BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes I do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From the plan that we have it would appear you are only proposing to use a little bit more let's say than half of that building for the apartment. BRUCE ANDERSON : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you do know that you need to add an indoor bathtub or shower. BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes I do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now the way this is laid out it says accessory apartment 597 square feet. Is that from where you presumably will wall off where it says kitchen and closet? BRUCE ANDERSON : That is up to the Board to this Board. What the code seems to say is that the apartment can't be more than 750 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's correct. BRUCE ANDERSON : Not the overall structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's correct. BRUCE ANDERSON : We've labeled essentially two spaces, one that's going to be used for storage and one that's going to be used as accessory apartment the Board can handle this one 5 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting of two ways. They can say you can physically wall off which would not be particularly difficult the door that leads from the accessory apartment area to the storage area or the Board can say simply that the storage area may not be used as an accessory structure and the Board has latitude either way pursuant to the code where it speaks to matters of consideration so that you could impose a condition to either physically wall it off or to simply say that the storage area cannot be used for accessory apartment. The applicant is agreeable in either event. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just doing some calculation. BRUCE ANDERSON : I would say I would expect some condition of some sort to address that issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's interesting I'm just doing according to this floor plan that we have here there's a difference between the accessory apartment is proposed at 597 square feet according to the floor plan and the storage area is 363 square feet. If you add those together I think you get 960 square feet and the Building Department has indicated that it's an 836 square foot of livable floor area. Maybe they're taking the bathroom out I don't know how they're doing this or they're saying a closet is not included but MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Maybe they're taking the wall thickness out I don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know either. It's not adding up. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The building is 40 by 24 basically which equals 960 square feet so that's consistent with what's written on the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : on the floor plan right. BRUCE ANDERSON : That's what I have. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But I mean without scaling it we could scale it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This isn't scaled. BRUCE ANDERSON : I mean there might be a slight difference between the two the difference being added in the interior space versus the exterior but they should be consistent I mean the overall footprint that shown on the floor plan is (inaudible) and the survey says 24.4 by 40.3. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's a lot closer than the Building Department calculations. The question that I have is is this being proposed without any separate sleeping? This is like a bed sit I mean this is going to be there's no bedroom proposed it says accessory apartment. BRUCE ANDERSON : It's a studio apartment so the bed would go in the apartment. � March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I'm asking you. You're not proposing a separate bedroom. BRUCE ANDERSON : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To be perfectly honest I don't usually get involved with designing anything that's the prerogative of the applicant but the space with the skylight is really an attractive space it seems to me a lot nicer than some of the other areas in there and maybe you know I don't know I would probably use that as a living space or some such thing and BRUCE ANDERSON : You can't make that work without ripping out the bathroom and building a new one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no you could still put the bathroom back there and make the bedroom where you're saying accessory apartment bedroom bathroom use it in the storage area as a living room with a kitchen in between. BRUCE ANDERSON : If the Board was so inclined to do that you would be giving me a variance over the 750 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but now it looks like it's a really big variance. MEMBER DANTES : Leslie I think he gave us a good solution which was walling it off and it's unconditioned space correct? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yea I mean like we could either close the door and lock it and we can designate the area as storage which is what the plan depicts. MEMBER DANTES : It's not heated or cooled right? BRUCE ANDERSON : Oh no it's heated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's finished space. BRUCE ANDERSON : Frankly we're if you want it physically walled off we can physically wall it off. That's not a big deal it's just you're talking about a door way. If you want to exact a condition which gives you regulatory control because remember the if we get the variance or if we I'm sorry we have satisfied to the Board's consideration of Special Exception conditions which is really what we're asking for here conditions on how you want to treat that space we're cooperative. The entire space is heated but that doesn't mean it necessarily would be occupied and then what follows is a rental permit and an inspection on the part of the building inspector. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea to make sure that the occupant is in fact the March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : So there is a built in control at that point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No they do a they have to issue a certificate of occupancy and then they need to see that it's renewed by the same person that qualifies on an annual basis whether it's the daughter or someone on the affordable housing. BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct and the code provides for an annual inspection. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. MEMBER DANTES : I think if you wall it off it's creating an apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's fine the question that I then have is given the way this storage area looks it was clearly used as an artist's studio painter you know was in there. Now this may be a code question. There's nothing in the accessory apartment code that prohibits more than one use in an accessory structure in other words you can have storage, you could have a workshop, you could have in other words you can take a part of that building use it as an apartment and use the rest of it for something else. That's the question I have. Can this continue to be used as a home office, as a studio, artist's studio or does it need to be strictly storage and MEBMER GOEHRINGER : Same person you mean? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea not by anybody else but you know what I'm I just want to be clear because this is BRUCE ANDERSON : Well it seems to be there has to be a zoning solution to this and I was thinking when you read the code about accessory apartments it says an accessory structures and barns and things of that nature and I thought to myself what if I had a farm and I wanted to put an accessory structure in a barn okay and my accessory structure my accessory apartment would be limited to 750 square feet CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's correct. BRUCE ANDERSON : well most barns are much bigger than that so there would have to be some sort of internal control as to the use of the portion of the barn as an accessory structure with the remaining portion of the barn be used for other things. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the code is not clear on that. BRUCE ANDERSON : I think you would confront this often. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well usually they're like the second floor of a garage accessory garage so you use the bottom as a garage and you use the top as an apartment. BRUCE ANDERSON : That makes sense to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is typically what happens. I just want to be sure that we're clear about you know how to define what the rest of this building is. You've got it labeled as storage we could just put down storage. BRUCE ANDERSON : Okay. A.T.A. KIELY : Yea you don't have to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have to stipulate anything. A.T.A. KIELY : Yea cause the thing is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : but it is conditioned space. A.T.A. KIELY : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it would be very tempting to use that space. A.T.A. KIELY : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : for habitable something or another. I mean realistically if you've got beautiful sky lights it's all sheet rocked and it's heated I don't know that I want to put my bikes in there. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well what would be so terrible about that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure that it's okay to do that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Gottcha. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : that's all I'm not saying it's terrible I just want to make sure that it's according to code. BRUCE ANDERSON : My belief in all of this A.T.A. KIELY : What is the C.O. on structure now? BRUCE ANDERSON : Garage. A.T.A. KIELY :That's what it could be used for. That's technically what cause March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : No cause there's no garage doors physically it cannot be used as a garage. A.T.A. KIELY : No what I'm saying is it was there was never a building permit submitted to condition that space? BRUCE ANDERSON : No. A.T.A. KIELY : Okay so right now technically speaking all it could be for is a garage until you submit a building permit to legalize that other portion right cause the accessory apartment the footprint on the accessory apartment is not the whole entire structure right? BRUCE ANDERSON : That's correct. A.T.A. KIELY : So I think you would need to legalize that other portion and in doing so then you would know what you could use it for. BRUCE ANDERSON : Okay so in other words you would make an application for the use of the remaining portion of the building as storage physically a building permit application. A.T.A. KIELY : Finished storage space finished conditioned storage space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See what my concern is when the Building Department sees something that's heated and finished with sky lights I don't know that they're going to think storage is what's going to happen in there. That's what we have had experiences with previous A.T.A. KIELY : You can try to legalize it as you know an office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can do a painting studio whatever you want. BRUCE ANDERSON : We can call it an art I mean okay. MEMBER HORNING : Where is the furnace the heat source? BRUCE ANDERSON : It's radiant heating. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's in the closet. There's a water heater in the closet. BRUCE ANDERSON : That's correct. MEMBER HORNING : And while I'm asking the dimensions of the sky light is that inches or what is that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. MEMBER HORNING : 45 by 45? March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : 45 by 45 inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's quite nice. It's a nice building and MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What Stephen said that's the way we should go. A.T.A. KIELY : and then we'll know clearly what it can be used for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay alright so what's the Board's pleasure I didn't want I mean we have all the documentation that we need to indicate that you know the we have voter's registration, driver's license, we have proof of residency, we have birth certificate of the BRUCE ANDERSON : I think otherwise we've met everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea you have. So let's assume you're going to use the as proposed on this floor plan 597 square feet of this building for an accessory apartment. The remaining 363 square feet the Building Department will have to issue a certificate you know a C.O. on the building once we grant this permit and they will determine what use is permitted there. BRUCE ANDERSON : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that right? MEMBER DANTES : Yea I just have one comment maybe it's just my packet but the C.O. that's in my packet is for somewhere in East Marion for the house I don't have the C.O. I don't know maybe in everybody else's packet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They gave us the wrong one. BRUCE ANDERSON : We gave you certificate of occupancy Z56797 in 1972 for private one family dwelling and then a separate one BOARD ASSISTANT : That's in East Marion Bruce look at the address. It's not this house. MEMBER DANTES : I see the one for the garage in 1982 that's Front St. Greenport. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 1982? MEMBER DANTES : That's the garage. BRUCE ANDERSON : You know I don't know because this is what the Town produced for us I don't understand it. BOARD ASSISTANT : You got the wrong one. 5 :'�., March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just got to go back to Building and get the right C.O. that's all. I'm sure there's a C.O. BRUCE ANDERSON : Oh I am too. It's likely that it would be a Pre C.O. The building was constructed in the 1800's. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have a ZBA appeal # 2830 dated May 2, 1981 granting the garage to Keith and Arden Scott McCamy in a side yard. BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct and also there is a certificate of occupancy for the rear extension of the house granted May 12, 2005 which I'll be happy to add to the record and obviously there'd have to be a C.O. you may not have this so I'll be happy to give that to you. MEMBER DANTES : The 2005 would probably cover the house is there anything involved with the garage in that C.O.? BRUCE ANDERSON : No. This was specifically the house (away from microphone) that required relief from the rear yard setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have this. I have 5678 right in my packet which is what you just handed me. That's the additions to the house. BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I got that 2005 alright so how do we want to proceed with this? Shall we indicate that the permit is for a 597 square foot accessory apartment and we can condition the permit based upon obtaining from the Building Department a C.O. for the entire building defining what the remaining portion can be used for. Does that make sense to everybody? I don't want to hold it up you know for something that really doesn't require testimony or anything like that. They may have to make an interior inspection I'm not sure. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : They're going to wall it off? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea and require that it be walled off. BRUCE ANDERSON : Yea going to wall it off. A.T.A. KIELY : Without that door. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Without the door take the door off yea because then they're separate you know separate function. BRUCE ANDERSON : And add a shower. 5 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely. It's going to be for a 597 square foot apartment, wall off remove door between apartment and storage we'll call it, add tub or shower and finally C.O. from Building for entire structure determining I mean if they say it's okay for artist studio and that's what you want to tell them you want to use it for or you can say I want to use it for storage you know whatever they allow you to do. BRUCE ANDERSON : I will ask the client. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean we had one in Orient on the Main Rd. there it was huge remember there was an apartment and an entire two floor painting studio. BRUCE ANDERSON : I remember that one. I worked on that one he was a painter and he was blind which was amazing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That's why he wanted the separate bathroom upstairs so he could a shower and toilet yep that was on the Main Rd. in Orient almost across the street from BRUCE ANDERSON : The monument. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSOIN WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 53 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING #6912— ELIGIO O. LOPEZ (CV) and 200 SKUNK LANE, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Eligio O. Lopez and 200 Skunk Lane LLC # 6912. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280- 13B(13). The applicant is the Contract Vendee requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an accessory structure located at 200 Skunk Lane Cutchogue New York. Would you like to come to the podium Mr. Barrett are you representing the applicant? This is for an accessory apartment in an accessory structure on the first floor converting from an existing workshop. The buildable floor area is proposed at 660 square feet which conforms to the code. We have a submitted affidavit that Eligio Lopez will who now lives in Greenport is planning to purchase two properties from Heather Romanelli the property at 200 Skunk Lane. The main house is to be rented to the son Ricardo and his wife full time and Lopez will live in the apartment full time. We have a birth certificate of the son and the citizenship of Lopez in our file. There was a prior January 22, 2009 #6228 from the ZBA for a lot line change Mr. Barrett would you please enter your name into the record? MR. BARRATT : My name is Robert Barratt. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Barratt can you tell me what year the accessory building was built? MR. BARRATT : As far as I can see 1955 appears to be the appropriate date. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's see what questions the Board might have here. George you want to start? MEMBER HORNING : I could. When does Mr. Lopez figure out that he's going to purchase the property? MR. BARRATT : Well he is not willing to purchase the property unless two things happen. He's allowed to live in the accessory apartment once it's constructed and that requires your approval and then in addition I have to get approval from the Suffolk County Health Department for the septic system because it will have its own septic system. MEMBER HORNING : And it does not have that yet the septic system? MR. BARRATT : No it was an unheated workshop. I'm sure many of you probably remember Mr. Michley he was a builder and he lived in the house I guess with his wife and if he needed to go to the toilet he would just run back to the house. I've had similar examples like that in the past some years ago we were in one of these discussions and we had a house where it was used as a 5 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting girls scout hall one day a week and the lady who lived in the house next door she let the little girls run into her house and use her toilet rather than one in the house and that was because the one in the house had been removed in 1930 during the great depression and what we did was we came to you people and we got approval to get a Health Department approval and build a toilet there and in this case it was not an unheated apartment we were doing it was sorry a heated apartment that we were doing it was in fact a heated antique store and you saw fit to give us the variance we needed and we then went to the Health Department got that out of the way and the antique store has been operating now for about seven years. MEMBER HORNING : Sir who is doing the renovations up there in the accessory building? MR. BARRATT : Well Mr. Romanelli seems to have a very comfortable relationship with the owner of the property who is Heather Romanelli who is the widow of John Romanelli who catastrophically died some early couple two, three or four years ago now anyway she has allowed him to do some landscaping for her on the property and you know that's about all I can say. The workshop three of you visited the workshop two nights or two evenings ago and you saw it the benches have been removed and again you see over the winter these landscapers they have a tough time you know unless there's a lot of snow removal to do so they have time on their hands and they go ahead and do little things if they can and so they've removed the benches from the workshop and they've actually installed one side of the partition wall that will separate the bedroom from the living room kitchen area. MEMBER HORNING : I think they made a bathroom also or they were in the process I was there yesterday and the fellow offered to show me the bathroom and I said no that's okay but I was in the building. MR. BARRATT : What time did you get there? MEMBER HORNING : Yesterday five, six o'clock. MR. BARRATT : Wasn't it the day before yesterday? MEMBER HORNING : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No the Board members came MR. BARRATT : Cause three board members came. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that was by appointment but MEMBER HORNING : I went there spontaneously yesterday. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Horning comes from Fishers Island so he only has time available to do site inspections the day before the hearing. MR. BARRATT : I'm so sorry you didn't call me cause I would of come over. MEMBER HORNING : I wouldn't of known how to call you but I am curious as to who is doing the renovations. Mr. Romanelli is that MR. BARRATT : No Mr. Romanelli passed away some years ago. MEMBER HORNING : I thought there's a brother or something. The question is who is doing the renovations? Usually we find the homeowners doing the renovations but in this case the property is changing hands. MR. BARRATT : Yes as I said Mr. Lopez and Mrs. Romanelli are comfortable with one another and she has allowed him to do various minor work already for instance I'll give you an example there's a basement in this building too and Mr. Lopez is storing some of his construction equipment down there small items. MEMBER HORNING : Now on the property when it's made if it's made into an accessory apartment where will the parking be for people in the accessory apartment? MR. BARRATT : Okay the people in the accessory apartment will be one person Mr. Lopez and if you look at the drawing right now there are two spaces here and he plans to extend those to three spaces and he'll use one of those. It's on the front of the house. MEMBER HORNING : Yes I think I have the same drawing. MR. BARRATT : (away from microphone) MEMBER HORNING : I'm finished Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know if there's a building permit in place for the renovations you have started being made? MR. BARRATT : I don't think the parking the building permit is not in place yet because we submitted it and then the Building Department you know the normal manner referred the project to you guys for approval so there was an earlier building permit and it's remarkable how these pieces of documentation can stay in place. It says building permit on it dated 2005 and it's when Mr. Midgley actually did the work on the earlier work. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have two certificates of occupancy for accessory buildings on the property one is from 2005 and the other was 1977. 5 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MR. BARRATT : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know if they're separate buildings or one the old building was renovated or torn down or MR. BARRATT : Well on the property there was what to me looked as though it might have been a long drop toilet at one time but I was told it was not in use and it would be removed and it was removed within three or four days in my mention it to Mr. Lopez so right now what you have on the property is the workshop itself and there is one other hut which is going to be moved once we get approval to go ahead because the hut is actually located pretty much where the leaching pools will be for the new facility. Hut is about here but it's not being used. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The second floor there is a basement underneath and a second floor above. MR. BARRATT : Yes there's a very nice basement which is used for storage and the very nice basement actually has a very nice concrete ramp that goes down to it and my biggest concern right now and it's alright at the moment because there's nobody there but as soon as this goes through and we have approval to you know do work etc. I'm going to recommend to the Building Department that we put up a guard rail on either side because a child could fall approximately fifteen feet probably to its death because the concrete walls just come up and you know how three year old kids are now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we saw it. MR. BARRATT : I have six grandchildren so I'm very aware of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The upstairs is at the moment unconditioned, unfinished just rafter framing and so on and that attic is to be also used for storage? It seems as though it's been used for storage. MR. BARRATT : Yes. I asked Mr. Lopez about that and he said well I hadn't gotten far enough along but possibly he might want to put some stuff up there store you know out of season clothes or something. I went up there myself there is a floor but of course the headroom is severely restricted hardly any of it would meet he six foot six headroom requirement of the Building Department so it's essentially pushing things against the sloping roof so you know I can see a few suitcases being put up there perhaps. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there are some sky lights or some dormers in there there is some head clearance we would have to condition any approval based on the attic remaining unheated and for storage only. We can't expand it to habitable use by for the apartment. The March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting apartment has to stay the proposed square footage which is 660 and conforming. We would have to condition it that way. MR. BARRATT : Yes currently in anticipation of your comment there I told Lopez he must put a lock on the door and remove the keys so access to the attic is strictly limited nothing beyond storage and you know he has a good deal of respect he's a successful business man and in addition he's gone through the whole rigmarole of becoming a United States citizen. He was a Mexican citizen before last April and you know I have a lot of respect for him and quite a few of my friends have used him for contract work and they find him a hundred percent trustworthy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well this is a little unusual in that he's a contract vendee and he doesn't want to close on the property unless he's able to obtain the Special Exception permit so we would as you no doubt know these don't run with the land they are given to the applicant they're very specific to the individual who must be living there and either the principal dwelling or the apartment has to be inhabited by a relative or someone on the affordable housing registry which is why it just doesn't transfer to other people. If you know someone sold the property they would have to come back to this Board to say how they wanted to use it to get another permit issued. MR. BARRATT : I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will you know null and void so we'll have to condition the granting of the permit to Mr. Lopez only upon his obtaining you know closing on the property so that it is indeed his property. MR. BARRATT : Well you know that shouldn't take long now because we have to it's a I took the precaution when I first visited the property I realized not all the date it was in place and the major exception was no test well had been drilled on the property to determine the soil mechanics on the site and also determine the water table the ground water table and the good news is it's relatively inexpensive to get it drilled and the results show that it's mostly sand. We're not in one of those situations where there's a huge piece of clay right in the way of the leeching pool and I made sure the test well was drilled more or less exactly where the leeching pools will be so I think even with the new rules and regulations in the Health Department that they won't have any concern about giving us a health permit. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask a question Leslie? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure please do. MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at the packet page S-1 it looks like there's a copy of a deed for a property in Greenport and Mr. Lopez owns what's the current use of that property? 58 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MR. BARRATT :The current use of that property is that his grandchildren are living in it. MEMBER DANTES : In Greenport. MR. BARRATT : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : What will happen after he purchases the house in Cutchogue? MR. BARRATT : One of them is a twenty three year old son and the son recently married Bethany who is now his wife and they will be the you know they're a young married couple they want the privacy they will be the ones to live in the house. MEMBER DANTES : No, no, no the property he owns in Greenport it looks like it's his primary residence what will happen to the property in Greenport after he buys this property? MR. BARRATT : Then he has another son and two daughters and I'm not quite sure exactly which ones will stay there but some of them will probably stay there for the time being. They're in college so it's not you know very significant MEMBER DANTES : So one of his kids is going to live in Greenport and the other one is going to live in the main house on this property? MR. BARRATT : I'm sorry I can't hear you. MEMBER DANTES : One of his children will live in Greenport and then another one of his children is going to live in the main house on the property in Cutchogue. MR. BARRATT : Well the married couple will move to Cutchogue leaving behind two girls and a boy a brother and two sisters. We're talking about they're all families and there's four children there with only five years between them. MEMBER DANTES : My other question was looking at the packet you have a copy of a lease what is the purpose of that why is that in the packet, it's an unfilled out lease? MR. BARRATT : Yes I understand that is the type of lease we would use if we were not using if we were not if we were renting to non-blood relatives. MEMBER DANTES : But isn't your application based on the fact that you're renting to blood relatives? MR. BARRATT : Yes. We're working we've been told the only people who can get approval to live there without going through the lease are blood relatives and the son qualifies. 5 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they still need to have a lease an annual rental agreement with the owner but that's really I mean it's inspected annually to make sure the occupant is the one that is supposed to be living there and the rent can be whatever the families decided MR. BARRATT : Yes I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : but there needs to be some lease or rental agreement between Mr. Lopez and his son and daughter in law. MR. BARRATT : Yes but we haven't filled it out CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea well you don't even own the property yet so MR. BARRATT : It would be for a nominal amount. MEMBER DANTES : To approve it don't we need a filled out lease? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. MEMBER DANTES : No? I mean do we have also do we is there a letter here CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have an affidavit indicating who's going to live there. I mean what we can do look there's going to have to be a few conditions on this. MR. BARRATT : Of course. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of them is going to be that the granting would be contingent upon purchasing of the property and submission to the Board a recorded deed. MR. BARRATT : A hundred percent agreed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Another condition will be Health Department approval since a septic has to go in. MR. BARRATT : Of course I wouldn't let them proceed without it believe me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They wouldn't get a C.O. and the other is that the attic is to remain unheated and unfinished storage and then we can indicate as another condition the submission of a rental agreement. A.T.A. KIELY : Just so you know the Special Exception Permit that you grant authorizes the use potentially as an accessory apartment however they subsequently need a rental permit after they fill out a rental permit application and meet all the criteria for a permit so all that March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting information that are requesting would be in the rental accessory apartment rental permit application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make it clear though because clearly this is kind of the chicken before the egg or whatever that normally we have people living in a property already so since this is a contingency purchase I want to make sure that it's clear that this is granted only to this applicant and that it will not you know it will be null and void nullified if for some reason the purchase does not go through which is why we would want to see a recorded deed showing the purchase. MR. BARRATT : I fully agree. I drive by this property every day from my home in Nassau Point and the very last thing that I personally want to see as a local person is any kind of misuse. I'm very strong on this point and I'll give you examples right now I'm fighting a case where a landlord in my opinion is trying to rent a property as a barber shop actually where the parking is totally inadequate. Now it's in Southampton so it's not your concern but I've told them I am personally not going to go ahead and put in any forms whatsoever on anything unless it's fully understood ahead of time we're going to have a safe facility. It comes from forty six years of licensing nuclear power plants. Believe me I've seen it all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I don't think so thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : More Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Yea the only thing I want to know what does he intend to buying the property in his own name personally when he purchases the property is he going to own it personally or him and his son going to own it or is a LLC going to own it? MR. BARRATT : I'm not sure. MEMBER DANTES : You think you can provide a letter with that information? MR. BARRATT : Yes we've signed a MEMBER DANTES : No, no, no we just want to know what entity is going to own the property because for our permit it's personalized so we want to make sure we issue the permit to the right entity. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MR. BARRATT : Of course. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea because the application says Eligio O. Lopez and 200 Skunk Lane LLC. A.T.A. KIELY :That's the current owner of the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's a co-application between Romanelli and Lopez gottcha. MR. BARRATT : 200 LLC is Heather Romanelli. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright now I understand. MR. BARRATT : Now you're asking me for the name of the MEMBER DANTES : When they write it out on the deed that's the name I would like to see. MR. BARRATT : You want yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lopez to be on the deed. MR. BARRATT : Can't place it as contract vendee for the moment? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no we're not talking about what would go on the Special Exception Permit. We want to make sure that when Mr. Lopez purchases the property that it's Mr. Lopez's name that's on the deed as the owner of the property and that it will be his principal residence whether it's the apartment that he's living in and his kids are living in the house that's all fine we just got to make sure that it's clear what the you know who the permit is being issued to. MR. BARRATT : You're saying that you're conditional approval is based on it being person's name not a legal CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it will be issued to the applicant which is Mr. Lopez. MR. BARRATT : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Mr. Lopez needs to be on the deed as the property owner. MR. BARRATT : It can't be Cutchogue 2016? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. A.T.A. KIELY : No. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MR. BARRATT : LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. MR. BARRATT : Okay alright that's a legal point I'm not really qualified to comment but I sympathize with you and I will make sure CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well because the property owner has to live on the premises okay and you know how does a corporation live on the premises it needs to be issued to an individual. MR. BARRATT : Yes I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6921—ANTHONY PAGOTO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Anthony Pagoto # 6921. This is a request for variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's November 19, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) proposed in location other than the code required rear yard March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting located at 765 Bayberry Lane (corner of Bridge Lane) in Cutchogue. Hi could you state your name for us please. ANTHONY PAGOTO : Anthony S. Pagoto. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Mr. Pagoto. This garage is being proposed in a front yard and it would look like you're actually on a bend with sort of two front yards maybe three front yards. ANTHONY PAGOTO : It's very confusing to me. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It's all front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's all front yard yea cause the whole street wraps around your property. Well we have been out there and inspected the property. ANTHONY PAGOTO : Yea the two inspectors there yesterday. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you want this pretty close to where your existing driveway is. ANTHONY PAGOTO : Yes the driveway would be forked to it to get into it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because of the slope of the property well let's see tell me why you can't place this is your rear yard conveniently or functionally? We have your survey and we see where you want to put it so I guess next to your swimming pool right back here would be considered a rear yard and why is that not possible? ANTHONY PAGOTO : There are steps leading up to that area, there's a deck, pool fencing a lot of landscaping it's not doable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the topography and the swimming pool and the location of the driveway and so on and so forth. Ken do you have any questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes I see that this parcel had acquired a variance previous variance for a forty foot front yard setback for the dwelling back in variance #2461 is there any way you could perhaps move the garage with a greater front yard setback or why couldn't you move it ANTHONY PAGOTO : There's a generator that is there you can see it on the map. The further back you go the more years ago it was backfilled with a lot of sand. There's a shed there. It would be very difficult to do that. The foundation that we're planning will be seven feet of poured concrete (inaudible) and all that and six inch slab and it's gonna have also a good footing plus I do have a lot of land in my area all around me the entire square block the four blocks all the garages are within view. This garage would still be quite a few feet from the road. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting I originally had it closer to the road and I'll be candid my neighbor across the street had approached me and he said gee my wife is not happy with it being that close to the road and yet it was quite a ways from the road I moved it another twenty feet closer to the are you're mentioning and I showed it to him and he said at that point that would be fine but I already did move it much further up than I really wanted to but to try to you know be neighborly I did that so the site map that you're looking at it has been moved a good twenty feet from where I originally had the stakes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry any questions or comments? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I don't have any particular comments. This is a one story garage? ANTHONY PAGOTO : A two story two car garage and the top floor is strictly storage. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And there'll be an internal stairway external. ANTHONY PAGOTO : That's correct an internal. It's in the right hand corner of the garage the new garage steps leading to the second floor. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Will it be heated at all? ANTHONY PAGOTO : No. It will have electric in that you know a couple of outlets, lights. It'll have two garage door openers so it needs electricity for that but it will not have inhabitants in it and it will not be heated or air conditioned or anything like that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you going to finish it in any way sheetrock it or just open studs and rafters? ANTHONY PAGOTO : It's being built it's an Amish garage hand crafted and I frankly feel the beauty of it will be the structure CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The wood framing. ANTHONY PAGOTO : Right. So I don't plan to insulate or sheetrock it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's unfinished? ANTHONY PAGOTO : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you have questions? March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Yea just for a correction you said it was a two story garage but looking at the plans it looks like the plans are what we would consider a one and a half. ANTHONY PAGOTO : Oh yea I'm sorry when I said excuse me. MEMBER DANTES : Cause if it's a two story you might have to come back for a variance. ANTHONY PAGOTO : It's got a I think they call it a gable roof and I just assumed because you go up steps and there's a flooring it's two story but you're right technically it's one and a half. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is what it's going to look like? MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GEOHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING #6925— ISIDORE MILLER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Isidore Miller # 6925. This is a request for variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's November 13, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) proposed in location other than the code required rear yard located at 1820 Kenney's Road in Southold. Just state your name and spell it please. ISIDORE MILLER : Isidore Miller. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Mr. Miller we've all inspected the property just so you're aware that we've seen it and driven around the neighborhood and this swimming pool is being proposed in a side yard where the code requires rear yard about 47% of it is in the side yard the rest is in a conforming yard and it's eighty eight feet from the closest neighbor it looks like. It's a two acre lot with two front yards and let's see, there's some oil tank and a rather sloping topography in the rear yard area so tell us what you'd like us to know about your proposal. ISIDORE MILLER : I guess a lot of what you just mentioned as far as the location because the house is sideways facing it just we thought it made more sense to have there's a back door to the house so you can get to the pool from the back door whereas in I guess the official back yard there's no access to get to it from the house other than going into the garage and through the garage. There's also other than one bathroom window there's no windows to see the pool (inaudible) the house whereas the proposal location you can see the pool from the kitchen and from the living room so we just thought that kind of had it a little bit of a safety issue. I purchased the house recently with my sister she has three little girls the idea of having the pool somewhere where we can see it was something we wanted to do. The other thing you mentioned like the oil tank is in the other area and then there's also that easement road which sort of if we put it in the official back yard you're still on the easement road which is used daily. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Suffolk County Water Authority is back there. ISIDORE MILLER : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to have to do it looks like considerable amount of excavating cause there's pretty much in a gully where you're proposing it. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting ISIDORE MILLER : Yea I spoke to the pool company and they said they will have to do a little bit but since it's an in-ground pool and the pool is going to go where like that dip is sort of almost already dug out for us and then just kind of you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just have some retaining walls. ISIDORE MILLER : Yea put a little bit of filling around It. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well the setbacks are very substantial from the adjacent neighbor's property and from the from Kenney's Rd. You have any objection to the possibility of providing some evergreen screening along Kenney's Rd. so that the pool is not visible from the street? ISIDORE MILLER : No. There is some there now we're planning on adding some so yea no objection to that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody we'll start down there. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question I mean how many feet is to the side yard is the pool? It's partially in the side yard and partially in the rear yard so I mean CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says it's 47% in the side yard so 53% in the rear yard. MEMBER DANTES : How many feet would that be? ISIDORE MILLER : So it's you mean like square feet or how many feet MEMBER DANTES : linear. ISIDORE MILLER : It's about I think about thirty. MEMBER DANTES : My other question was on the gully there does the gully does it fill up with water? Is it I mean does it become like a stream during heavy storms? ISIDORE MILLER : No. It just it runs that's pretty much like the MEMBER DANTES : I was wondering about drainage that's all. ISIDORE MILLER : Yea and I was a little worried concerned with that too and we had a landscape architect designer guy look at it and the water will run both towards Kenney's there's like this kind of an area on the property here where the water is like the low point and then here there's another low point so both would run away from the pool as it is now anyway. MEMBER DANTES : Then it won't run onto the street? March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting ISIDORE MILLER : No. MEMBER DANTES : Those were my two questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don't understand why you can't locate it in a rear yard. If you moved it about another twenty feet or so then you'd be conforming and you wouldn't need a variance at all. ISIDORE MILLER : True. The main reason we kind of wanted it to be a little bit closer to Kenney's is cause if you see the steps to the house the back yard steps we kind of just wanted it to be a little bit closer and then also the windows to the house we wanted to be able to see the pool from inside the house and then as you go further back the property also continues to slope down so it would make it more difficult to actually go (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well for you to fit it in really behind your architectural rear yard let's call it which from Kenney's would wind up being a side yard actually you know what I'm saying Ken? Kenney's Rd. would make it you pushed it right where the steps are say absolutely parallel to your house it's still technically in a side yard. ISIDORE MILLER : Right and that's why that's what we were a little confused cause we always considered that the back yard cause CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it functions as a back yard but unfortunately the code says when you have two front yards the Building Department has to determine where the rear yard is. They have to give you a rear yard someplace but it makes it a little more awkward. I live on a corner lot too so I'm in fact around the corner from you. I live on Soundview. Anything from either you Gerry or MEMBER HORNING : I was wondering where the rear yard was if there is one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that's a good question. I mean the Building Department would have to make a determination. I mean I guess since this is the front of the house they're likely to say that's the rear yard but from Kenney's say this way here to here but from Kenney's that's a side yard even though that's not the front that's the side of the house it's still considered this is all a front yard. Well no this would be a front yard right here okay and this would be a side yard from Kenney's and a rear yard from the right of way so the bottom line is it has very large setbacks and it's going to be suppressed somewhat from the road. The road is actually higher than the topography of the property in that area so I think with some screening and you know placing the pool equipment in a sound proof box which we typically do just to make sure that it March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting mutes the noise and you have a drywell in there, you're going to have to comply with the drainage codes all drainage has to be on site anyway so anything else from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry or George. MEMBER HORNING : No I'm all set. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSOIN WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6882—ANTHONY and LISA SANNINO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony and Lisa Sannino #6882 this is re-opened by Board resolution. A request for variance under Article III Code Section 280-13A(4) and the building inspector's June 17, 2015 amended June 23, 2015 Notice of Disapproval for a building permit for construction of a winery/tasting room at 1) winery located on a parcel less than the code required minimum of at least 10 acres devoted to vineyard or other agricultural purposes located at 15975 CR 48 (aka Middle Rd.) and 7495 Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue. So just enter your names into the record. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting ANTHONY SANNINO : Anthony Sannino applicant. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore attorney on behalf of the applicants. Mrs. Sannino is here and I want to introduce Marissa who's their daughter who's in college and studying business and hopefully will run the winery someday. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now just to be clear the Board re-opened this because when last we left off what we had in our public record was the attempt to look at a couple of possible options that would allow you to purchase adjacent property to make the ten acres conforming once your residential property was merged with the purchased agricultural property and we didn't really have in our record anything about what happened as a result of those efforts so we couldn't do anything with it and we felt that it was better to be complete and find out exactly what happened what you went through and what the conclusion was so please let us know. PAT MOORE : Thank you yes. I was also going to state that thank you for re-opening the hearing. I think it is important to have the what has occurred since our last meeting and the efforts that have been made and I'm going to have Anthony put on the record all of those efforts. Rather than this is not an intention to rehash everything that's already been discussed but I will have Anthony just go through and describe what has occurred since. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now one quick second and not to turn this into anything elaborate but the bottom line is because it's probably very, very difficult if not impossible to memorialize in writing from the perspective of the people you may of approached I'm going to swear you in which the Board may do so that the testimony that you give is under oath and that way we'll know that it's certainly going to be credible not that it wouldn't be credible anyway but this makes it a little bit more formal. So if you would please just step up to the mic and raise your right hand and repeat after me I ANTHONY SANNINO : I Anthony Sannino CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : do solemnly swear ANTHONY SANNINO : do solemnly swear CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : to tell the whole truth ANTHONY SANNINO : to tell the whole truth CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : and nothing but the truth ANTHONY SANNINO : and nothing but the truth CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : so help me God. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting ANTHONY SANNINO : so help me God. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Pat could you close that back door for me. PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank you so much front door actually. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay please tell us what happened. ANTHONY SANNINO : So in front of you you have a map and surrounding our properties. We have lots 14.4 and 14.6 all of the shaded lots are lots that we attempted to purchase. I'm going to start with the most obvious at the last hearing lot number 4 some of you have black and white there the color coordinates on the other one colored copy but number 4 was the church adjacent to us. We did make a formal offer to them. We thought it was pretty much a done deal from our last hearing the pastor seemed to think it was going to work very well. Unfortunately they have a trustees group and not everybody agreed on it so at this time they said it wouldn't be in their means to sell it so that was number four and probably the easiest purchase that did not happen. On number one which is actually a listed property and at our last hearing the seller and the seller's broker were here. The broker did speak. We did make a formal offer and we're going to submit also the offer that we made so we do have that one in writing and it is an offer that is pretty much what market value is if not exactly what market value would be so we have comparables from our real estate broker as well so that attempt was made and also declined and we have the decline in a letter from the listing broker. Lot two is owned by a gentleman that lives in Greece. The neighboring if you look at the unshaded lot number two which is one over provided the phone number cause they're actually friends and we did contact him and at this time he's not ready to sell his property and actually not he probably would consider it if it was way over market value is what he said but he's not willing to sell at market value. Number three over to your right is also willing to sell but it's too small to satisfy our needs to meet the current town code. Number five is the Wickham Estate and we did speak to Gail Wickham regarding that and at this time they're not willing to sell any property there. So those are all our attempts. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where's five on here? ANTHONY SANNINO : At the very bottom shaded area at the bottom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see I saw all the markings and I didn't see the five. ANTHONY SANNINO : Right. MEMBER DANTES : How big was lot number three? March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting ANTHONY SANNINO : Number three I believe we were told it's like a half acre. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That's vacant right? ANTHONY SANNINO : No there's a house on there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There's a house on there. ANTHONY SANNINO : Yea. PAT MOORE : Mike Pisacano. ANTHONY SANNINO : Steve. PAT MOORE : Steve Pisacano. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I thought there was a house there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it's developed. ANTHONY SANNINO : It's also developed it has a house on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That probably would of required a lot line change and then it would of probably created a substandard residential lot. ANTHONY SANNINO : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or an easement I guess could of done in perpetuity. MEMBER DANTES : Still wouldn't of gotten him close. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No not really. Alright so three was too small, four was the church lot that you mentioned and number five Wickham not available. MEMBER DANTES : When you say not over market value what was the actual numbers on one and two? ANTHONY SANNINO : On one and two the offer was I think their asking number is 359 which is about !00,000 above market value. We offered 280 I think it will be in your record we have a copy of it in here. MEMBER DANTES : And what about lot number two? ANTHONY SANNINO : Lot number two we made the same offer as lot number one trying to be consistent with market value. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My house isn't worth that much. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You'd be surprised. PAT MOORE : It's interesting when you see the comparables are how it's that lot is being advertised they're using the Sannino's vineyard as the reason for the value. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Shame on them. PAT MOORE : Just to get to wrap up because if you have any other questions but just to make it clear would you be able to operate a winery on this property without the variance if we don't get the variance would you be able to operate a winery? ANTHONY SANNINO : Absolutely adding PAT MOORE : If you don't get the variance are you allowed to operate? ANTHONY SANNINO : Oh oh definitely not. PAT MOORE : Okay can you operate the winery functionally with the land that is presently there? ANTHONY SANNINO : Absolutely and actually the options that we were exploring probably do not affect the operation of the winery anyway if we were to add more property. It doesn't add side yard, it doesn't add anything to the functionality of that winery so we made our best effort. We understand it's an overly restrictive code and it's a little bit ambiguous even for you guys most importantly Lisa and I would like to thank you guys because you know it's a difficult job and we do recognize that when codes aren't clear we need to work together and that's why we made the efforts to go forward and try to purchase property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we just needed to have in our record what the outcome was because obviously you understand that when there is an alternative to being non- conforming then the Board has to suggest that you have an alternative. ANTHONY SANNINO : Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just wanted to see what alternatives were still on the table or not. Does the Board actually have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Not at this time. March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything anybody? I'll bring George up to date and make sure he gets a copy of this also. He of course had to leave to catch the ferry as he always does anyone else in the audience who wants to address this application? SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE : I would like to rehash some information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me explain we aren't going to go back and revisit things we've already gone over your comments and their comments they're all part of our public record they're all recorded and they're all transcribed so all those words are part of the public record. We just needed to do a follow up to find out what happened because at the time we closed pretty much it looked like they were going to be able to buy this property from the church the pastor was here as you'll remember and so on and there was a real estate agent in the audience and so we realized as we were trying to think this through we didn't know what happened and we had to find out so that's the only reason we're here today. So if you have comments about what you just hear that's fine but if they're comments you've already made we have them. SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE : Okay thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Anything else from anybody oh did you want to hand in something? Yes you can hand in something sure. Would you just in the microphone just state your name because I was speaking to you and we need to record who I was speaking to. FRANCES SLEZAK : My name is Frances Slezak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Okay now come up and give us what you'd like us to have. Thank you very much. Alright I will make sure that the applicant you know Pat Moore that you have a copy of this we'll make a copy so you can have it as well and we'll put this in our record anything from anybody? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. 75 March 3, 2016 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) • March 3, 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. gkeweiGs Signature : Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : March 15, 2016 77