Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/07/2016 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 April 7, 2016 9:26 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 SCHNEIDER – Member VICKI TOTH – Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY – Town Attorney ? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Lazarus Alexandrou # 6927 3 – 7 Lisa Gillooly # 6922 7 - 25 Breezy Shores Community, Inc. (Jason Schmidt) # 6934 26 - 28 Susan and Douglas Looze # 6940 28 - 30 North Fork United Methodist Church (CV) (RMB Realty, LLC) # 6936 30 - 33 Daniel F. Higgins # 6933 33 - 36 Joseph and Catherine Manno # 6938 37 - 41 Robert Norton # 6943 42 - 43 Jonathan Tibbet # 6937 43 - 46 Keith and Lynette Kane # 6942 46 - 48 Ralph and Joan Vivinetto # 6939 49 - 51 Frank J. and Elizabeth G. Kelly # 6898 51 - 56 Ronald and Patricia McGrath # 6935 56 - 63 Alfred J. Terp, Jr. # 6941 63 - 80 ? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6927 – LAZARUS ALEXANDROU CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The application before the Board is for Lazarus Alexandrou that’s #6927. This was adjourned from 3/3/16. This is a request for variance from I’m going to read it into the record anyway a request for variance from Article XXIII 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 the top of the bluff located at 2700 Sound Drive (adj. to Long Island Sound), in Greenport. Good morning Dave would you enter your name for the record please. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Yes Dave Chicanowicz of Creative Environmental Design representing the owner. I’d be happy to answer any questions but our submission does come with three other comparable approved ZBA rulings adjacent to this property which helps make our case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well first of all what you’re proposing is a bluff setback for a swimming pool right at 34 feet 11 inches where the code requires 100 foot setback. Now we have, have you gotten a copy of the letter we received from the Trustees Dave? DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are expressing some concerns of course for the close proximity to the bluff knowing that Sandy and other severe weather episodes have created considerable bluff erosion along the Sound. The LWRP letter indicates that the proposal is inconsistent. We have some letters from neighbors with some environmental concerns also but you’ve brought up the various priors the appeals I’d like to point out in the record that appeal #3386 which was in 1985 denied the construction of a new dwelling this is all on this road on subject property at 35 feet from the bluff. Prior #6787 this was Elizabeth Sadik this was more recently she applied for a bluff setback for a swimming pool of 40 feet and it was amended after the hearing at the Board’s request to 48 feet which is what the Board granted. Another prior Mary Beth Hanson #6461 the applicant applied for a 39 foot bluff setback for a swimming pool and the Board required a decrease in the non-conformity. It was subsequently amended and granted alternative relief at a 55 foot bluff setback and then finally ZBA #5893 Mannos that was July 27, 2008 applied for a 65 foot bluff setback for a swimming pool which was denied and alternative relief was granted at 80 feet. So while we have granted variances for swimming pools the absolute closest that we permitted is 48 feet and you’re applying for 34 foot 11 inches say 35 feet. ? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if you look at the survey what kind of options do you have for the possibility of relocating that swimming pool to wind up with a greater setback? DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Well the only logical position to get closer to what you’ve already preapproved on other cases would be putting it in the side yard which would be on the westerly side of the property that we may be able to you know get conforming areas to slope it back. One of the things that’s interesting on this particular property is the fact that there is a positive slope from the top of the bluff towards the street unlike other properties that you’ve granted variances on so this in itself is an improved area for concern about erosion or the proximity to the top of the bluff as well as if you have looked at the site the bluff is extremely well vegetated. It’s one of the best sections of bluff in that entire area because of the contours of the slope along the sound it’s been able to maintain itself with and be able to go through some of the major storms that we’ve had with no damage to the bluff. So it is unique to the actual location the elevations are a big plus to this particular situation and I think it’s worth considering by an individual case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you Dave would you consider amending this survey and showing us a side yard location with I would say since the Board has permitted 48 feet that at the very minimum 48 feet Trustees generally think 50 feet is okay for swimming pools and I think that’s what John Bredemeyer’s letter was suggesting to increase that setback since you do have a generous side yard and you do have a gravel non-turf buffer in place and we have visited the site we know that it’s rolling towards the street and not over which is a benefit. You want to see what you can do and come back with an amended survey? DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Just that one variance before (inaudible) did that involve a pre-existing non- conforming structure? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that was for a new swimming pool right on the same street. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Right and again going back to the other adjacent properties that do have further setbacks that you’ve approved I think all of those cases they’re flat properties going from the Sound to the house unlike this property which is completely different where you have the highest elevation at the top of the bluff and going back. We do have planned on putting drywells in to contain any of that you know the non-turf buffer that was installed as per Trustees recommendation was done and adequately maintained so there is a lot of pluses to ? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting this and was hoping for your consideration on this. We do if there’s any possibility of keeping the location of it if we were to make the pool thinner you know it’s right now 16 feet we can drop it another 4 feet to give them like a 12 foot wide pool having it cause this was their preference as to the client’s request to having it in this approximate location for reasons of sun exposure as we move it to the west we’re going to be blocked from the neighboring trees that are there so the whole swimming pool would be pretty much in the shade so the reason for placing it here is because of the best location for a swimming pool patio area. So I would like you to kindly you know consider that possibility. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from the Board? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : An extra 4 feet is not going to make a big difference. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t think so. I mean so that would make it 38 or 39 feet. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : You’re gaining. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Huh? DAVE CHICANOWICZ : We’re gaining. MEMBER DANTES : Are your survey’s stamped or do you have the same one I have? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I’d just like to ask a couple of questions. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question Dave. (inaudible) do you stamp the survey is there a reason or you just forgot? DAVE CHICANOWICZ : No this survey was accepted by the Building Department and this is an overlay of Nat Corwin’s plan so it is not a stamped plan. MEMBER DANTES : Oh okay. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Gerry you had a question? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea I’d like to you know during construction I’d like to construct a silt fence if you would even though as you said the property falls away. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Yea we commonly do that with any new construction. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : On all of these bluff situations we ask that the majority of the equipment that’s being used be all rubber tire as opposed to track stuff. The water hose that’s mentioned the county determination of course I don’t know where it is I didn’t see it when I was up there some water hose running over the cliff or something ? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : It’s there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I didn’t see it I don’t know it was blowing so hard that day when I was up there just remove that DAVE CHICANOWICZ : That needs to be removed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Basically look at all of the Soil and Water Conservation recommendations and you know deal with those aspects and tell us if you have any particular problem in dealing with those. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Not at all. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay and any recommendations from the LWRP coordinator so that it becomes one composite whole situation that we can CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what will happen is that the we can’t make a determination unless we determine that it’s consistent with the LWRP so we will either have this will be amended and we will then have to indicate it’s consistent by virtue of being mitigated by certain conditions and some of them are already spelled out in those recommendations. We’ll put that in the decision. Anybody else George any questions? MEMBER HORNING : I’ll ask a little bit more about the hose what does the applicant do with that hose in going down DAVE CHICANOWICZ : I believe the hose was running to the bluff to wash their feet off from the beach. MEMBER HORNING : Just to supply some water. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : That was it but that can be removed. MEMBER HORNING : And they turn it on when they want and shut it off when they want? DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Well it technically shouldn’t be there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m just saying that you know obviously if this thing is in the side yard then it’s in a non-conforming location but we can just grant alternative relief or relief as amended if you’re going to amend the survey we don’t need to go back to Building Department. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to you want to just adjourn I think we’ll just adjourn to the Special Meeting giving you time to submit. ? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting DAVE CHICANOWICZ : I’ll resubmit another alternative location it would be closer CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea and then we’ll look at that and we can close this hearing at the Special Meeting in two weeks. DAVE CHICANOWICZ : Very good. I’ll get that to you as soon as I can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting on the 17 th of April. (correct date for the Special Meeting is April 21 st) MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6922 – LISA GILLOOLY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Lisa Gillooly #6922. This was adjourned from February 4, 2016 and since it’s an adjournment there’s no need to read the Notice of Disapproval again except to note that we have received an amended Notice of Disapproval and a new survey in which the proposed oversized garage is now conforming in size and the proposed fencing height has been changed from eight feet to five feet. You are still looking at a front yard setback to the proposed garage that has been changed from 5 feet and 26 feet to 10 feet and 28 feet. We have lot coverage at 27.8% maybe we have some questions about that. The fence height is at 5 feet when the code allows a maximum of 4 feet in a front yard along King Street and 4 feet is proposed around the swimming pool. Okay so all correct? LISA GILLOOLY : Good morning sounds correct. I do have an existing variance so ? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lisa please just state your name for the record. LISA GILLOOLY : Oh I’m sorry I am Lisa Gillooly. I live at 450 Harbor Rd. in Orient permanent resident. I am not I am will certainly consider adjusting the fence to 4 feet but I do have a variance for a 5 foot fence that dates back to when the pool was put in and I thought that would run with the property which is why I didn’t understand why that was going to be an issue but if it is an issue I’m just here in good spirit trying to see what we can get done today so I can move forward and get a proper fence and hopefully a garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The variance for the 5 foot fence where was that 5 foot fence located around the swimming pool? LISA GILLOOLY : Well I have its partially along King St. it turns into Harbor Rd. I did as part of this application I want to move the fence back to the property perimeter so the 5 foot variance back in those days they didn’t really state where exactly the fence was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it was for the swimming pool? LISA GILLOOLY : No it just said property fence on the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no the variance do we have a prior in there? I’m just trying to see where the variances do run with the land but it would probably depend on where the fence was located to begin with whether it was BOARD SECRETARY : The variance is for erecting an accessory structure in the front yard area that was back in ’76 it doesn’t say anything about a fence but maybe the approved plan shows a fence I don’t know. LISA GILLOOLY : Okay it says in the second page of that variance the pool shall be no closer than 15 feet to the southerly and easterly property lines and the pool shall be surrounded by a 5 foot fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is however a difference between a pool being surrounded by a 5 foot fence and a 5 foot fence along a property line unless you were going to fence in your entire area per code. LISA GILLOOLY : That’s what I plan to do is that fence that I’m proposing will be my pool fence. There will only be one fence and it will be the perimeter of the property coming back to the house in an appropriate way so it’s surrounded on all sides. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you’re proposing fencing that goes all the way along King St. that’s way past the swimming pool. ? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting LISA GILLOOLY : I can drop the fence down. I believe it shows on the drawing that where the fence turns into the house I believe it is shown then from there on it says split rail down toward the water to define the perimeter of my property. I’ve been having trouble on that side of my property the Town is my neighbor on that side and there’s a parking lot and the parking lot after Sandy got destroyed and people are now parking not in the lot but rather on my property because of the parking lot that was destroyed in Sandy was never put back and never repaved and people get stuck in the sand so instead they’re parking literally on my side yard and I can drop that down to 4 feet if everybody is happier with that and get my privacy from hedges as we discussed last time. I just thought since I had the 5 foot I would love the 5 foot to run at least that side of the property and as it turns in it can go back to 4 feet cause I don’t have a privacy issue so 5 feet till it turns into the house drop it down to 4 feet along Harbor Rd. and as it connects to my house and then a split rail fence from there to keep people from parking on my lawn. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course we don’t have any plans for the proposed garage it’s just a foot print on the survey. LISA GILLOOLY : Yea that was you know I did hire architects and things but they gave me the basic plan it’s going to be but until I knew what I would get approved I didn’t get the final plan drawn. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s understandable however because this is proposed very close to the road height becomes a very important factor and I don’t know what the height is. LISA GILLOOLY : It’s 18 feet which is the maximum height allowed and the 5 feet from the road is deceiving. I think you all know it was a surprise to me but there is like 12 feet between the road and my property line or 14 feet that is the town so it’s really 17 feet from the pavement or more and I have a natural berm or the town does on Harbor Rd. if you’ve been out to this site that’s rather high so the garage would be not like boom there’s a lot of natural vegetation on the Harbor Rd. side and since our last hearing I moved the garage 5 feet in toward the swimming pool to try to make it as palatable as possible. There are only four houses on Harbor Rd. and my three neighbors on the water side all have garages on the front part of the property and they all I believe exceed the lot coverage guidelines which is one of the issues I’m having. Two out of three of my water side neighbors do not oppose this project I also want to note. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Am I reading this correctly? What is the let me ask you the question what is the setback for the proposed hot tub from the bulkhead is it 43.6 feet? No, that’s not the bulkhead that’s the mean high water. ? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting LISA GILLOOLY : The hot tub is setback 27 feet from the rock revetment and 43 feet from the high tide mark. Is that what you’re seeing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And there is a dry well proposed you’re just landward of the coastal erosion hazard line but you have an existing cesspool that’s partly in the coastal erosion hazard area. LISA GILLOOLY : I’m aware of that and obviously the coastal erosion hazard area has changed over the last many years since that’s been put in and even my lot size since I moved in has changed as we noticed last time from erosion my lot has gotten a little bit smaller than what it was when I moved in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s start with some questions from the Board. Ken you want to start? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea let’s look at the lot coverage. Do you have a copy of the most recent survey you submitted? LISA GILLOOLY : I do. It’s so tiny I can hardly (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s a discrepancy between Joe’s calculations of 29.5% and the Building Department’s citation of 27.8%. LISA GILLOOLY : Yea I think that the difference might be the driveway. The driveway is gravel so I mean it’s just stone so I think I’m not sure but I just noticed that also when I was preparing for this so that 3.2% on the driveway I think maybe I’m guessing I have no idea why there’s a discrepancy. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay I’m looking at the new site plan it has two tables and I’m looking at the table to the right so if you can look at the table moving down where it says existing house you see that? LISA GILLOOLY : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay well that’s self-explanatory that’s the square footage of the existing house. LISA GILLOOLY : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Existing sun room that’s well described as well. Existing covered porch now what is the existing covered porch on the survey? LISA GILLOOLY : I think we’re talking about the water side of the deck. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The water side of the deck. LISA GILLOOLY : The deck on the water side is has an overhang. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay. MEMBER DANTES : It’s labeled roof over wood deck one section you’re talking about? LISA GILLOOLY : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay. There’s confusion here. LISA GILLOOLY : Well exterior upper deck. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well let’s stay with the existing covered porch part let’s try to resolve that now on looking at your survey it says existing wood deck on the northern side of your house. LISA GILLOOLY : Correct I don’t know which way is north I’m sorry. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It’s up the page. LISA GILLOOLY : I got it yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Toward the road. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Towards Harbor Rd. would be north okay. So where would the area of the existing wood deck be in this table? LISA GILLOOLY : Well we should ask Joe. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That’s one question so we’ll put a little question mark on that one. Now let’s move down existing upper deck now where is the existing upper deck? LISA GILLOOLY : I believe that is referring to the I thought existing upper deck was the part that you just described on the north side. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay well we’re not sure but where okay now we’ll go to the waterside of the property okay and your wood deck that extends from the house on the southern part of the house okay where is that in the table? LISA GILLOOLY : Well I thought that was the it says existing covered porch, existing upper deck, existing lower deck there is no lower deck in the proposal right? ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well I don’t know but I think the lower deck maybe the deck around the pool I’m not sure I didn’t write these drawings. LISA GILLOOLY : That is the deck around the pool that is being taken out so it should not be on the right hand table and it’s not so that we got. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And it’s not so the existing upper deck we’re not sure what that is. There’s two decks on this drawing that are not accounted for in this table clearly I mean LISA GILLOOLY : Well the covered porch is one. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don’t see a covered porch on your drawing. LISA GILLOOLY : Well I think I mean my thought was the covered porch to me is the front deck and the existing upper deck is the back deck but that’s what I would MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay I may agree with that a little more clarification perhaps from Joe perhaps to be a little more descriptive. It appears that way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The wood deck on the seaward side that’s existing? LISA GILLOOLY : That is existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea so I mean it’s a little confusing when you say existing wood deck on the landward side and then just wood deck on the seaward side. They should just both be labeled as existing if they are. LISA GILLOOLY : It says existing yea it’s all existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea no I’m looking at the actual drawing the survey it just says wood deck on the seaward side. LISA GILLOOLY : Yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See what I mean? It’s just a little confusing that’s all cause the terms are not consistent the labeling. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Correct the labeling. LISA GILLOOLY : In the chart on the side it says existing covered porch, existing covered porch, existing upper deck, existing upper deck, existing pool, existing pool so I’m and then proposed hot tub like I’m not seeing where it’s not saying existing. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look on the drawing look at the deck where it says roof over wood deck and it says wood deck. LISA GILLOOLY : Right and then in the back I see what you’re saying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it’s very hard to kind of collate the because the labels are different. LISA GILLOOLY : I see I didn’t notice that but you’re absolutely right that is existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause you know it’s clear what’s being proposed but we also need to know on here what’s existing in order to really make sure we know what the lot coverage is. LISA GILLOOLY : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so then we went through the existing covered porch, we went through the existing upper deck a little question marks about that we’re not exactly sure the existing pool well we see that clearly the area for that correct? LISA GILLOOLY : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay then the proposed hot tub well that’s very clear on the drawing cause that’s shown there as well and now we have the proposed garage at 660 square feet well that’s clearly indicated on the drawing as well and then we come down to the new driveway at 3.2% which I believe can be removed from this calculation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It can it’s not part of lot coverage. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : On my plans here I have 29.5% handwritten looks like maybe the signature from the designer. I would think perhaps you might want to subtract 3.2% of the driveway from what’s that 31%? LISA GILLOOLY : Right and I had asked him to do that I had 28.81% at the end in what I thought was going to be on here cause I made one correction to the last go around which is bigger so I have it here and I picked up that to remove which then when I saw what Damon said I said oh he must of subtracted out the garage from the 31% minus that 3.2% and that gives you the number on his sheet I think. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Notice of Disapproval sites 27.8% lot coverage. LISA GILLOOLY : 31% minus 3.2 is 27.8% so he deducted out that driveway on the Notice of Disapproval. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So what do we want to do with the drawing have it corrected or something have it verified? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let’s just look at yes that’s easy to do those corrections can be made the question is the variances that are before us that’s what we should be talking about. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Have we resolved the issue with the table or do you think what we just spoke to the upper deck and lower deck CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They need to be labeled consistently that’s all so we know what percentage of lot coverage is what and it’s very hard on a flat drawing unless it says upper deck you know then you’re looking at upper deck if you know I don’t know what’s upper or what’s lower. They’re both existing decks and part the seaward deck has a roofed over area right there’s no deck on top of that is there? LISA GILLOOLY : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it’s part of a covered deck so just the terms just need to be descriptive and consistent so alright having discussed that let’s see does the Board have other questions about the amended survey or the amended application? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Only the point of view of the discussion with Ms. Gillooly regarding the changes in the fence line on King St. you know the different height and the different types of fence you’re going to use since it is a Town road an extension you know I would suggest and I’m not taking words out of anybody else but I think you should definitely show us how far you’re going with what fence you know in different colors or you know at least depict what those fence changes are going to be. LISA GILLOOLY : I think if you look at the drawing you’ll see where the fence along King St. it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does say proposed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea but it doesn’t tell us which fence she’s putting LISA GILLOOLY : Well the 5 foot height right now I’m before you for 5 foot all the way in the proposal that you have. I am willing to adjust according to our conversation today. Where the fence turns on King St. into the house I’m willing to go from there forward down to the water with a split rail fence if that’s more palatable for the group. I am you know asking for the 5 foot fence all the way down but I will definitely drop it down to 4 and make it a split rail once I have you know finished the loop to the house for the pool safety. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You’re talking about split rail fence that would be along where your propane tanks are. LISA GILLOOLY : Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That has to be a non-treated split rail fence the Trustees will require a non-treated LISA GILLOOLY : That’s fine. I have no problem with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is a split rail fence conforming for a swimming pool? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No I don’t believe she wants okay I’ll let her speak to that. LISA GILLOOLY : Right I said I will close the loop into the house with the proper height and then from there down I think maybe I do want the fence to run a little further than I’m describing because of the propane tanks and the parking situation so where the fence the proposed fence comes in to close off the pool I think I proposed the fence down to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You said 4 foot high. LISA GILLOOLY : Right down to 4 feet and at the very end before the rock revetment that last line is where I was proposing a split rail fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. From approximately where the propane tanks are going toward the water is that what you’re talking about? LISA GILLOOLY : Well I’m adjusting that now as we talk cause I think those propane tanks should be behind more than a split rail I think that should be blocked off because people I just I think it would make it look nicer from the road so if I ran my fence to the coastal erosion line and then did split rail for that last little section that would be my preference. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well so you’re just talking about a small piece of split rail from the coastal erosion toward the rock revetment? LISA GILLOOLY : Correct again cause CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and then from and going toward Harbor Rd. along King St. what are you proposing? LISA GILLOOLY : Well I have 5 feet I’m willing to drop it to 4 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what material? ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting LISA GILLOOLY : I was going to use what untreated well I was going to put up a stockade kind of fence but I am open to suggestions wood a stockade wood fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if it’s conforming at 4 feet you can put up whatever you want. I mean and the bottom line is you have to make sure that for life safety reasons the fencing around the swimming pool conforms to the code. LISA GILLOOLY : Correct. I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The idea is you can’t you don’t want something like split rail there because anybody could you know an animal a child could crawl right through it. LISA GILLOOLY : Of course and I still am requesting 5 foot along there. I do have a variance on the property for a 5 foot fence that is undefined but when we turn to Harbor Rd. I would propose to drop it down to 4 feet would be my preference. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea because it would appear that the when the pool was granted the 5 foot fence was okay but it was really meant to be around the pool and not along the property line. LISA GILLOOLY : How does there’s no definition that says that in anything that I read. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I mean just reading the decision because it’s really by reference okay if you’re proposing a swimming pool then the fence that is required for the swimming pool would be around the swimming pool. LISA GILLOOLY : But the fence is there what it is it’s much more than just a swimming pool fence and I mean that was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no I know that’s what your proposing now LISA GILLOOLY : No but what’s currently there is more than a swimming pool I mean if I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I realize that. LISA GILLOOLY : Alright I’m just my biggest problem on and just so you all know I live next to the public parking lot. There’s activity till two, three in the morning. The kids leave I don’t mind they’re usually well behaved they shine their lights when they leave. They have no and they shine right into my house so a little bit of a higher fence would help me tremendously on that side but again I am here in the interest of cooperation and wanting to get this done and so but I just thought between having some sort of a variance and having that issue with the town parking lot that it might be a consideration for 5 feet down to a split rail. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any other questions at the moment or do we want to hear what people in the audience have to say. Oh yea George hold on one second I’m sorry cause Eric’s done some calculations of the lot coverage. MEMBER DANTES : What I added just these numbers up by calculator without the driveway I’m coming up with 24.36% so I mean this is to your benefit cause if that’s accurate then it would be a much reduced variance. LISA GILLOOLY : Easier I honestly after all I was you know I hired first I hired a landscape architect, then I hired Nat Corwin then I hired Joe Fischetti so for me to be standing here with inaccurate drawings cause I didn’t do the calculation but I hope you’re right that would be very good news and it’s embarrassing cause I should of taken out my calculator. I just try to figure out how Damon got to his number. MEMBER DANTES : My other question was with the garage you plan on having a pitched roof with the top when you pitch the roof like that a gable roof? LISA GILLOOLY : Yea. MEMBER DANTES : Would you be willing to put the gables so that they face east and west and the pitch faces north and south is the way to kind of mitigate the height. LISA GILLOOLY : I think that might work and that’s why I’ve had that conversation with the architect and that is what that has been an open you know depending on what we decide here but I think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They have to you’d have to because that’s where you’re going to enter from the driveway into the garage you would have to pitched that way. LISA GILLOOLY : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The ridge would run parallel to the two longer walls yea to the street. That garage is going to remain unheated and with no habitable space? LISA GILLOOLY : No just storage space yes that’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No plumbing? LISA GILLOOLY : No plumbing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably electric most people like to have a light bulb in their garage. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting LISA GILLOOLY : I would like a light in the garage yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now George thank you for your patience go ahead. MEMBER HORNING : You’re requesting a 10 foot front yard setback from Harbor Rd. can you give us the distance these two distances to the overhead of power lines and to the edge of the pavement? You didn’t give us the distance did you to the edge of the pavement? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She told us verbally. MEMBER HORNING : Seventeen? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I believe it was fourteen. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Fourteen excuse me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No she said it was seventeen feet. LISA GILLOOLY : Seventeen it’s a twelve foot buffer zone that the town has and then my ten feet so it’s I think it’s actually hold on nobody knows what the town owns? I think it’s like twelve feet and I now have I had five so that was seventeen and I added five more so now it is twenty two from the pavement. MEMBER HORNING : Okay and the King St. side does your fence right now go right along the property line? LISA GILLOOLY : My fence the current fence ends before the town part starts so it connects in I don’t know I can’t my eyes are so bad MEMBER HORNING : I’m trying to figure out where these people park on your property. LISA GILLOOLY : Oh on the King St. side down by the water there is a parking lot directly across the street close to the water and that parking lot is now all sandy so they’re parking the fence is in the fence you see on here my fence is currently in about 6 feet from here. The fence that I’m proposing runs along the perimeter of the property as opposed to where it currently is so that people are parking near those propane tanks. MEMBER HORNING : So in this little area that says edge of pavement that’s kind of they’re parking off of the pavement up in that are right now is that the area? LISA GILLOOLY : That’s not the area I’m talking about. That edge of pavement area is just where there’s a what do you call it a berm to the pavement. MEMBER HORNING : It’s down towards the water where the ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting LISA GILLOOLY : It’s down towards the water and that’s where I’m having the night time lights into the house from that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look in the interest of time let’s see if there’s some comments from the audience. LISA GILLOOLY : Can I make a comment quickly on my neighbors. I know there have been some neighbors that have come together and I did talk to two of the neighbors that were on your original sheet there was something that was submitted with twelve signatures no signatures but twelve names. Mr. Reagor called me to discuss the project and he told me that he had no objections. He then took my drawings he crafted pictures went around to neighbors with erroneous information to besmirch my name and my project when he could not get any of my direct neighbors to object to this project he broadened his reach. He went many blocks away found people to listen Vanessa Hands added her name to the letter and she lives in Browns Hills two miles away. I spoke with the Lemansky’s they never agreed to sign anything. They explained to me what Mr. Reagor told them. He told them I have several outstanding violations. That is completely untrue. I have not built anything in the ten years that I lived in the house without a proper permit and I am not in violation of anything. I repaired a retaining wall after hurricane Sandy and it had I had the original permit for that wall and I constructed a properly permitted rock revetment two years ago so that is completely fabricated. He said that I don’t live in my house and that I’m seeking improvements for an onslaught of tenants. That is also not true. This is my primary residence. I am a realtor at Corcoran. I own the Manhattan Film Institute that takes place at Peconic Landing. I am a full time resident. I travel a little bit in the winter so that’s also not true. Mr. Reagor gave the wrong dimensions. My garage was proposed to be built 5 feet from the pavement which was never the case and when I was shown the information that he provided to the neighbors I would of objected to the project. Mr. Reagor also gave the neighbors of what a picture of what he calls gray water flowing from my property into the bay that is completely a fabrication and I have no gray water that is flowing into the bay and Mr. Reagor also told my neighbors that I don’t pump my septic system. My septic system was pumped a year ago by Daisy Morris. It’s pumped regularly. I live in Orient for thirty years. You’d have to pump your septic system or it would be not pleasant to live there so that’s all. Thank you. Oh but I do respectfully request that Mr. Reagor’s testimony be rejected and the neighbors erroneous testimony be rejected thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Let’s see who in the audience would like to address the application? Come forward and state your name please. MR. REAGOR : I would just like to submit a letter from the community (inaudible) ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright come forward. That’s alright we’ll make additional copies. Obviously we’re going to have to read this and we’re not going to read it now. Please state your name. CAROLYN MACLAUGLIN : My name is Carolyn MacLauglin and I live at 515 Narrow Rd. in the Hog Pond area and I’m representing many of the people who signed the letter. The letter addresses some of the I mean raises some of the questions that you’ve been asking today so it’s the plans have been carefully gone through and lack of clarity around the garage height, the dimensions of the garage, the height of the fence so some of those questions are in that letter where we couldn’t we didn’t feel we can get an exact handle on what was being proposed so you know we’d appreciate it if you’d look at that. The a lot of the neighbors it’s I think you’re probably all familiar with the area it’s a community known as Hog Pond a lot of us have lived there forty years some of us twenty years and you know do have a sense of community there. There’s a lot of concern among about the garage. The garage is and as I said we couldn’t tell exactly the height or the size of it but it’s going to be close to the road, close to the corner and as you’ve discussed the corner you know it is goes down to a road end. So the road end does allow parking and then beside that what Lisa is talking about with the parking lot is State land my understanding historically is State land. It’s not really a parking lot but it’s been used unofficially as a parking lot. So there is a lot of people that go there and it is an attractive place for people swim, people sit on the beach and it’s important to all of us that that area remains attractive and that it’s not spoiled by a large structure you know sitting there on the corner so there is a static concern that many of the you know a great many of the neighbors. The height is not specified but it appears that it could be higher even then the house. The garage could block visibility of people coming around the corner if it is set close to both streets and it’s tall. It’s out of character for the neighborhood. There aren’t you know having a real tall big structure there a lot of the houses are one story they’re low. We are concerned about the lot coverage and there was the lack of clarity whether or not it was in the thirties in the high twenties or you know what the lot coverage is. There’s been in my understanding and I’m not an environmentalist but my understanding part of the lot coverage has to do with drainage of being you know the water being able to go back in the environment you know the environment is very sensitive there. There’s been certainly a lack of a degradation of the water quality there in the years the forty years that we’ve had our house it used to be eel grass, there used to be scallops and clams largely have disappeared there’s still some clams. MEMBER DANTES : As part of her application when she goes to build she will have to comply with the Town’s chapter on the water drainage (inaudible) CAROLYN MACLAUGHLIN : So that would will be good because you know there is concern about sometimes the number of people using the house the cesspool being very close to the water ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting line and if this this might imply additional use of the house and I don’t know if this is an issue or not you know the garage would be within the flood zone as I said neighbors feel it would be an eyesore and it doesn’t come near to meeting the required setback the thirty feet that’s required so those are all concerns that we have. We’re also I’m unclear about with the issue of the hot tub if that’s been approved or not approved or what the status of the proposed hot tub would be. The we’re also the original plan that was submitted a few months ago had a loft above the garage and we’re unclear the usage of that of what that space would be for and I don’t know if that’s been eliminated or not but originally it was a big two car garage with a big loft up above with windows so there is a concern about you know what potentially that could be used for and as I say and I’m glad that it will be addressed like the drainage for the hot tub if that’s approved and then you’ve been talking about the fence and we would certainly prefer the low fence not a stockade fence you know as attractive as a fence as possible. I don’t know you know where which fence where the split rail should start but as an attractive and as low as fence as possible would be appreciated and so the neighbors oh and then there’s the deck that’s on closest to the water is over the cover comes closer hits up against the erosion line and I don’t know if that’s been approved or not. If it hasn’t been approved perhaps it should be shortened made smaller so it doesn’t go into the erosion line that the deck should be brought back a bit so you know the neighbors we all love the area and we don’t want the basic character changed by this you know large garage just sitting there right on the corner and would like the rest of it made as attractive as possible and concerned about the lot coverage issues. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? MEMBER HORNING : Can I ask this lady a question on the photos that they just submitted what they’re trying to demonstrate or show with on the waterfront. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you’re going to address the Board you need to come to the microphone and state your name please. MR. REAGOR : My name is Reagor and what’s the question I’m sorry. MEMBER HORNING : What are you showing in the picture what are you trying MR. REAGOR : This is the sea wall or the wall constructed after I think it was about three years ago. It’s a sea wall which MEMBER HORNING : I mean why take a picture of it? MR. REAGOR : Well it is it shows the distance between the deck and the sea wall. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : It does? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me ask Lisa a couple of questions in response to some of the issues that were raised. With regard to the existing deck the seaward deck did that have Trustees approval? Do you have a Pre-CO or C.O. on it? LISA GILLOOLY : That deck is has been part of this discussion. That deck was there when I moved in and I believe in the permit I have a permit for a deck, I have a permit for an addition a deck addition. They were it was very foggy. I produced a survey that I was given prior to purchasing the house that has all of that on there and that is here for before you that question about the deck and getting it whether the papers you have if you look through your packets the permitting that you have is sufficient or whether you have to I don’t understand the problem with the deck. I have on the original plan permission to extend the front deck but it doesn’t say how far it just says permission to extend up to twelve feet so if you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which deck are we referring to? LISA GILLOOLY : We are talking about the waterside deck so if you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a C.O. for that? LISA GILLOOLY : I have some sort of a C.O. Somebody has presented to the Board that I added to the deck that I personally have added to the deck that I had a C.O. for and I am saying that is untrue that never happened. I did not add to a deck that I didn’t add anything to the deck and I provided proof of the survey prior to moving in to the house that showed the deck as it is today. So this is all being brought up but I do have a C.O. for the waterside deck but it doesn’t say the measurement so now the we wanted to get it into conformance by putting a measurement on it that was what I was told to do to come here and have it certified with as it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Zoning Board with regard to that deck we don’t have a noted variance we have lot coverage and LISA GILLOOLY : But when the deck was built it wasn’t interfering with the coastal erosion zone. The coastal erosion zone is interfering now but it isn’t something that is creating an eyesore for anyone now. It’s been there for at least fifteen twenty years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know what the setback to the bulkhead is of the deck again for some reason it’s to the mean high everything is noted as the you know MEMBER DANTES : But we don’t do bulkheads anymore. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but I want to know what it is. LISA GILLOOLY : It should be on the plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well no it’s the measurements that Joe put down here are all to the high water mark not to the (inaudible) or to the bulkhead. LISA GILLOOLY : Is there a measurement between the water mark and no CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it just says 35 feet to the apparent high water mark and it doesn’t say what the setback to the bulkhead is but it’s got to be if you just eyeball it it’s got to be about 15 feet roughly. LISA GILLOOLY : It’s not anywhere near the water if I can tell you that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let’s MEMBER HORNING : I will ask the applicant what is this a picture of a permitted bulkhead? LISA GILLOOLY : Yes it is that is a permitted bulkhead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you a question about the actual garage because again all we really have is a footprint and I understand that you’ve not wanted to invest a great deal of money in having something designed that may not be approved so that’s understandable however given the proximity to the two roads even though you’ve increased them and decreased the size of the garage considerably let’s talk about the height. The code permits a maximum of 18 feet. In order to mitigate some of the impact because it’s so close to the road what about a reduction in the proposed height? LISA GILLOOLY : I don’t feel that I would be able to stand I have no after Sandy I had to abandon storage in my basement cause my basement is moist so I really have no place right now to put anything anywhere. I can’t put bike, I can’t put kayaks, I can’t put I have no storage within my house so I really need room to be able to maneuver and turn around and shove stuff up in the top of a garage so I would really I brought it down I was asking originally for 21 foot height and I dropped it to 18 so thinking that that would be and other people including my neighbor who is standing here has a garage 8 feet away from where I’m proposing this garage and it’s twice as big and I mean not twice but thirty percent bigger and higher so it’s astounding to me that this would be an eyesore of any kind if you’ve been it’s a dead end street. It affects very few people. There’s an abandoned lot across the street. I live in a bird sanctuary. I am very in tune with the aesthetic of where I live and the last thing I want to do is to I have a giant berm going halfway up the garage. I’m trying to make it as unobtrusive as possible and give me some much needed place to ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if you had a 15 foot high garage you would still have room for a loft for storage. LISA GILLOOLY : Would there be my architect told me that would be not worth putting the loft in. I don’t know why but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because you would have to bend over slightly instead of standing up. LISA GILLOOLY : I also have film archives that I want to keep safe up there from our film program I mean I have a lot of I need space is really so I would really like to keep that at 18 if possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand why you’d like to but I’m just exploring the possibility of reducing the height which would then mitigate some of the visual impact because it is a little different when you have a lot you know that’s right on a street but what you see is from one direction. When it’s on a corner lot particularly at a road end LISA GILLOOLY : It’s a dead end there’s like four people a day. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’ve been there we’ve seen it. We’ve all seen it. I’m not suggesting that it’s a highly populated place but it does have a greater impact. LISA GILLOOLY : Except apparently my house. And for the record I have six children. I have four of my own and two step children. The activity level in my house I object to any comment on if I entertain in my home. I think that that’s not right but anyway go ahead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see the hot tub can that be relocated farther away from the water? LISA GILLOOLY : I mean it can’t be seen. It’s very it’s located according to a landscape plan in a very aesthetically pleasing way. There is no reason to relocate it I don’t think cause it can’t be seen from the road. It can’t be seen from the water. It can’t be seen from the deck. I would like to know I don’t understand the hot tub problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m not suggesting that it’s an absolute problem only that the Board always entertains proposals as far away any structures accessory structures as far away from the water as possible for obvious reasons. It’s not just you I mean we do this consistently and so we ask applicants do you have a reasonable alternative to make it farther away from the water? LISA GILLOOLY : Okay I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a question we ask everyone. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting LISA GILLOOLY : I understand and I don’t have a reasonable alternative that works as well. I mean it’s really been well thought out and placed in a place that was out of the way. It’s not a huge property but I mean if it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just raising the questions. LISA GILOOLY : I understand and I respect that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not sure where we’re going but we’re asking the questions. Is there anyone in the audience? We do have lots of other hearings schedules and I don’t want you know cut anything short for anybody but we can certainly continue to take written comments. We have received written comments we haven’t really had a chance to really read yet. We have some questions about lot coverage and calculations and labeling and so on so I think probably the best thing to do is to adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks to give you an opportunity to get some of those numbers straightened out the labeling on the survey and all of that possibly to provide some more details on the proposed garage so that we can see exactly what’s going on there and for your information all of that information is available through FOIL freedom of information act in our office if anyone wants to come in and take a look at that information. Is there something else from anyone, anything from the Board? MEMBER HORNING : Could you show us the Trustees permit for the bulkhead? LISA GILLOOLY : I don’t have it with me but I definitely MEMBER HORNING : Would you submit a copy of it please? LISA GILLOOLY : I sure will. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Great so hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on April 17 th (meeting is April 21 st). MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6934 – BREEZY SHORES COMMUNITY, INC. (JASON SCHMIDT) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Breezy Shores Community, Inc. (Jason Schmidt) #6934. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Code Section 280-123 and the Building Inspector’s February 3, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing seasonal cottage at 1) a nonconforming building containing a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved, unless such building is changed to a conforming use located at #8 Breezy Shores Community, Inc. 65490 Main Rd. (aka State Route 25) aka Sage Blvd. (adj. to Shelter Island Sound) in Greenport. Hi Frank. FRANK UELLENDAHL : Good morning. My name is Frank Uellendahl Central Ave. in Greenport and I’m also joined by Ms. Schultz and Mr. Schmidt in case there are questions for the owners. Well we’ve done a lot of these applications in the neighborhood of Breezy Shores Community and everybody now knows that you’re not going to allow the increase of the footprint by very much but you do allow a modest increase of up to three percent in recent applications and this is what we are proposing here as well. This is very similar to an application that you passed last year. This is number seven right next door. They actually you asked them to reduce they were going in with a larger footprint and they had to basically redesign so we are basically putting the 21 square foot slightly less than three percent increase in footprint on the landward side of the cottage and we are also proposing to lift it up so we can put in a new foundation. The foundation the floor system is in pretty bad shape. The porch up front water side is sagging and the half bath is also sagging and doesn’t have really a proper head room so by lifting it up putting in new footings and bringing this down to slightly higher FEMA requirement it’s only we only have to raise it up another maybe twelve inches fourteen inches maybe. I want to add that during the super storm Sandy this cottage was not affected as far as the floor plan in concerned. Number seven is more than a foot lower and they were flooded so we feel good about this but we still want to raise it up a little bit. We want to retain the cottage look. A lot of these cottages now are raised up more than three feet and the you end up with six, seven steps going down and this is not what Breezy Shores used to be. I mean you would just walk out of your door and sit down at a table and be at the water so we are very close to doing this. We only have three steps going down and still will be able to be on FEMA elevation. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it would appear that 21 square feet is to allow for second bedroom? FRANK UELLLENDAHL : Well we yes this gives us the opportunity to redesign the back. There’s one larger bedroom right now as you can see in my drawings and there is a small child and we just want to give them the opportunity to add a little room for the kid yes but the there is no we are not asking for a full bathroom. We want to hold on to the outdoor shower and it’s still going to be a half bath. We like the simplicity of the cottage the way it feels and is right now so it’s going to be retained but the porch up front and the bathroom structure will need to be reframed in order to make it safe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let’s see Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. It’s very straight forward. Ken anything? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No questions. Dejavue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we’ve seen this before. Thank you for reminding us of all the priors like five variances we have to revisit. FRANK UELLENDAHL : Yes Vicki makes me do those things but you know it’s all good things could come back what we’ve been working on all these years and I did not put in on my site plan silt fence and hay bales but we are going to of course protect the water. If you want me to add it to the site plan I’d be more than CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not necessary. It’s actually LWRP consistent so you know FRANK UELLENDAHL : Yea well it’s very close to the bulkhead. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : In lifting the house that’s the reason why you have to deal with the half bath and the yea the outside porch and the shower is that correct? FRANK UELLENDAHL : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George anything? MEMBER HORNING : Just to reiterate you stated that the increase size is 2.98%? FRANK UELLENDHAL : Yes shy of three percent. MEMBER HORNING : Yea alright thank you. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSOIN WEISMAN : Okay is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6940 – SUSAN and DOUGLAS LOOZE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Susan and Douglas Looze # 6940. Applicant requesting a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(14). The applicant is the owner requesting authorization to establish an Accessory Bed and Breakfast accessory and incidental to the residential occupancy in this single family dwelling with two (2) bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to the B&B casual, transient roomers. Location of property 1100 Youngs Ave. (aka Railroad Ave.) in Southold. Hi. How are you? SUSAN LOOZE : Good morning I’m Susan Looze. We’re asking for a permit to open a Bed and Breakfast at 1100 Young Ave. two bedrooms upstairs I don’t know how much information you need. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Tell us about where the people are going to park if you would please. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting SUSAN LOOZE : On the right hand side I think is the north side of the house there’s two parking spaces one for each room and then there’s resident where we’ll be living in the back there is also two spaces back there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you have four on-site parking spaces? SUSAN LOOZE : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay cause you need two for the residence and one for each bedroom. SUSAN LOOZE : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. We’ve gotten electric bills from you in your name and so on verification of ownership and occupancy. You’re in the process of renovating the structure now. SUSAN LOOZE : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s still on going. I did see you at the interior inspection and everything appears to be the way you’ve drawn it out. Does the Board have any questions? This is a very straight forward application. We have all the documentation we need as far as I can see. Anything from you Eric, questions? MEMBER DANTES : I apologize for missing the site inspection. SUSAN LOOZE : That’s okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I balled him out. MEMBER DANTES : I thought it was a pretty straight forward application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes I’m sorry for missing your site inspection as well. SUSAN LOOZE : That’s okay. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have no questions. It’s pretty straight forward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry was out of town so and George lives on Fishers Island. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It makes it very easy when everything is upstairs and that’s basically the entire upstairs so SUSAN LOOZE : Yes it is. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I’m just writing some notes down here. Anyone 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. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We’ll have a decision in two weeks, two weeks from tonight. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6936 – NORTH FORK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH (CV) (RMB REALTY, LLC) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for North Fork United Methodist Church. Earlier on today we read into the record the fact that this will of necessity because it’s a coordinated review with the Planning Department that it will be adjourned. We will hear it and we will then adjourn it to a later date subject to SEQRA determination by the Planning Board to look at impacts but we will hear what the applicant wishes to propose this morning. So let me read this into the record. This is North Fork United Methodist Church which is #6936. This is a request for a Special Exception permit per Code Section 280-48B1. The applicant is requesting permission to construct and operate a house of worship and religious instruction located at 43960 CR 48 (aka North Rd.) corner of Horton Lane in Southold. Is someone here to represent the application? WILLIAM MOORE : Good morning. William Moore counsel for the North Fork United Methodist Church and I’m also chairman of the Board of Trustees. As you can see a large number of our congregants we also have our architects with us in case you have any technical questions Dawn and Dave Harvey of Harvey and H&H out of Sag Harbor are here as well. We’re very excited to ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting have this opportunity to put a new church in this town. I know there’s concerns about what happens to old churches but we’re happy to say we’ve sold the Southold church and house of opera is going to be going in there very exciting and all across the country if you read articles old churches are being repurposed for all kinds of uses now from single family residences to restaurants to bed and breakfasts so change happens. Four churches from Orient, Greenport, Southold and Cutchogue have merged into a single Methodist church we don’t have a horse back rider minister going to church to church which is the history of the Methodist church we actually get in our cars and go to a central location. This property is perfect. We found a site that it’s on a major thorough-fare; its churches can be located in residential zones we don’t have to concern ourselves with impacts on neighbors because we have surrounding farm fields and commercial professional offices there. There’s a traffic light at the corner so we found this it’s a perfect location for us. The church is scaled to our needs for parking, for size, for seating such that we came before you asking only for the Special Exception and not for any variances. That being said the Planning Board did raise some questions about traffic and things like that one of the interesting things is our use is different from every other use out in town the medical offices to our east are a Monday through Friday operation you know eight to five or eight to six and we typically are on evenings and on Sundays so we’re not competing or adding to a traffic in fact if you’re up on Sunday mornings poking around town I think you’ll know Sundays is the quietest traffic day in town early enough in the morning. We don’t anticipate generating a significant amount of traffic or problem to existing traffic especially with a traffic light there not really an issue. The code requirements for parking we actually meet them if you look at the seating area for the sanctuary we would require by the computation thirty eight parking places alternatively we can do one for every four seats we’re offering one for every three so we’re actually adding some additional parking providing fifty on site. We don’t think we can relocate and discuss that with the Planning Board as far as how they want to see those configured on the site but even if they want to move them around with us we can still accomplish that without having to move the structure within the setbacks unless they really push us and say well go back to the Zoning Board and ask for variances. It would be an interesting request where the Planning Board is urging us to come back to you. We will do so if that’s what they insist upon but we can accomplish this at scale and meet our needs without variances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m just reviewing the Planning Board it’s important that the record show that the letter or the memorandum from the Planning Board generally does support this application. WILLIAM MOORE : Absolutely right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s just mention that right off the bat. We’ve also reviewed your plans and your attempt to remain kind of aesthetically contextual mimicking some of the more ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting historic church structure in your proposal and the fact that it’s a scenic byway is something that I think Planning will talk to you about with regard to making sure that the setback is substantial enough to and that the fact the design basically supporting this what relaxation of the front yard setbacks is supported by the Planning Board to achieve oh that’s just to achieve relocating parking out of sight of the scenic byway so again these are issues that are well within their jurisdiction typically religious institutions are supported in this community. I don’t see anything missing in this application at all before us. Let me see if the Board has any questions. George let’s start down there. MEMBER HORNING : Required setback would be 100 feet? WILLIAM MOORE : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. I mean they’re proposing conformity but the Planning Board may want to change that because of the scenic byway and they might want to tuck parking in someplace else especially with ingress and egress off of Horton and you know so and so but that’s again something that will be described during the SEQRA process and that you’ll address there. MEMBER HORNING : Then they might need a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They might and they’re supporting the variance if they do then they’ll come requesting a variance. WILLIAM MOORE : It will be a Planning Board driven request which is unusual but we would consider that and go back with our architects and our church folks. There is one thing and it’s we’ll adjust it more with the Planning Board there was a prior site plan on this site for two seven thousand square foot medical offices. It’s expired. At the time it was done a covenant was placed on this parcel asking for a cross easement with the piece to the east similar use medical offices we’re going to ask the Planning Board to extinguish that. We don’t have any interest in nor they’re conflicting uses and different hours of operation. I can understand if we’re doing medical offices as a shared idea of an exit out onto Horton from Winds Way but that isn’t necessary here and we’ll ask them to extinguish that so. We have our architects here if you have any questions for them don’t hesitate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody do you have any questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don’t. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No questions. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Just one. I know other churches in town will have like nursery schools, play groups, AAA meetings and food pantries will this church also be (inaudible) or would you consider hosting those events as well is that part of your plan? WILLIAM MOORE : We would but they would not they wouldn’t be done at the same time as a church service so the other kinds food pantry we operate one presently at Cutchogue so that’s a possibility as a service yep. We do have a nursery school up there as well during the day but you know one or two teachers and toddlers so it’s not a big parking demand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? WILLIAM MOORE : You can all stand and say hello. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing I’m sorry to adjourn the hearing subject to SEQRA determination by the Planning Board. 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 # 6933 – DANIEL F. HIGGINS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Daniel F. Higgins # 6933. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s January 27, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct a deck addition to existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required rear yard ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting setback of 35 feet located at 1745 East Gillette Drive (Cedar Lane not open) in East Marion. Will you state your name for the record? CHARLES SOUTHARD : My name is Charles Southard. I’m the registered architect on the project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is for a proposed rear yard setback at 23.9 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. CHARLES SOUTHARD : That’s correct. This is a wooden deck three foot above grade open wooden deck. It’s in the rear yard which is also a front yard there’s a paper road in the back of it which is unopened so it requires a variance a setback variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess the house is actually at 35 feet so CHARLES SOUTHARD : The house is at 35 a little over 35 feet the deck is 12 feet wide so it becomes about 24 feet 23 and change. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this a replacement deck because there is a raised deck there. CHARLES SOUTHARD : No this is an existing deck. It’s written incorrectly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s what I thought. CHARLES SOUTHARD : As the photographs show it’s an existing deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so this is not a replacement this is to legalize CHARLES SOUTHARD : This is to legalize that particular deck yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : of the as built deck. CHARLES SOUTHARD : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for clarifying that. CHARLES SOUTHARD : Yes I saw it written up and it wasn’t written as a pre-existing so I don’t know what happened but I did want to clarify that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much. Just so you’re aware we’ve been out to the site and we’ve seen it. CHARLES SOUTHARD : I’m sure you have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do site inspections so questions George you want to start? ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Sure. So Cedar Lane the applicant and anybody else living on East Gillette does not have any access to Cedar Lane is that right? CHARLES SOUTHARD : That’s correct yes. MEMBER HORNING : So and can they legally put in a driveway or anything like that from that side? CHARLES SOUTHARD : No they the road is not even open it’s not paved it’s dirt there. MEMBER HORNING : I just drove down it yesterday I mean but it is drive able. CHARLES SOUTHARD : You can drive down it yes but I guess if it’s legally if they have legal frontage on that dirt paper road they could actually access it. They don’t they don’t have any intent to but I guess they legally would be permitted. MEMBER DANTES : Well the reason I mention that is because I think the ZBA (inaudible) one time where you know a supposed front yard but if the applicant has no access to that particular road then you really can’t consider it legally a front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that’s correct but this that’s why this is sited as a rear yard setback. MEMBER DANTES : If you can drive can drive on it shouldn’t it say open instead of not opened? CHARLES SOUTHARD : It’s not paved so I think that’s the distinction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t know I don’t know usually what it means is that it’s wooded over. You can’t some cases can’t even walk on it. I mean there’s still things on tax maps that are there that are literally overgrown and non-functional. In this case there is a kind of wooded area like a buffer behind the property. CHARLES SOUTHARD : There is there is in the rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Looks like some people are maybe putting some sculptures out there and sitting back there which is fine I don’t know who owns it all I know is that there’s that area and then there is a very narrow paved road which actually takes you by the lavender farm. It comes off of Main Rd. so they really have no relationship to each other that road Cedar is used strictly by the people who live in that subdivision. Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well I just want to make a statement that the subject Cedar Lane is owned by the Town and it’s not improved and it’s not open at that location of the property. I believe the neighboring adjoining property to the north of that there’s huge trees right in the ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting middle of what I appears to be Cedar Lane so it’s not an open road and just to reiterate this is for an as built do you know when the deck was built? CHARLES SOUTHARD : No I’m not sure. I know the house is only a few years old like 2009 I’m not sure when this was built. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So it’s obviously not built before 2009? CHARLES SOUTHARD : No it wasn’t. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That’s it for me thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything? MEMBER DANTES : No other than I just think it’s an open road but it does have two front yards either way reason for the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There’s no intentions to put a roof over it in any way? It’s going to remain open? CHARLES SOUTHARD : No it’s going to remain open as is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING : No more. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone 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 a 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. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6938 – JOSEPH and CATHERINE MANNO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Joseph and Catherine Manno #6938. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15B&F and the Building Inspector’s February 12, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for accessory garage and accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) proposed accessories in location other than the code required rear yard or front yard on waterfront property, 2) accessory garage at more than the maximum code allowable height of 22 feet located at 325 Wells Rd. (adj. to Richmond Creek) in Peconic. Would you state your name for the record please? JOSEPH MANNO : Joseph Manno. CATHERINE MANNO : Catherine Manno. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have a vacant piece of property and you want to put an accessory garage and an accessory pool in a side yard and you back up to a lot of wetlands and Richmond Creek. The accessory garage so there’s a side yard location for two accessory structures. The accessory garage height is proposed at 23 feet one quarter inch where the code permits a maximum of 22 feet high. Why do you need that extra height? JOSEPH MANNO : I believe it was just a design by the architect that drew it that way. I don’t need the twelve inches and one quarter. It was just how he drawn it on the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So he could lower it just a little bit change the pitch JOSEPH MANNO : Of course. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : on the roof and just make that conforming? JOSEPH MANNO : Yes absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s talk about the proposed placement of the garage and the swimming pool. JOSEPH MANNO : No, no basement in the garage. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No the placement. So why tell us why you can’t put them in a rear yard or a front yard. JOSEPH MANNO : Well the reason was I didn’t want to encroach on the wetlands. We have limited space back there and I’d like to leave that natural and the fact that the garage is about I believe we’re three feet away from the house where if we did move it over three feet I wouldn’t need the side yard variance so the reason was my wife and I eventually going to start collecting cars and things like that in case for future space I have the room without encroaching on the neighbor in the future so that was really the reason not to push it in the back so far. CATHERINE MANNO : Also the house is only a three bedroom home and that would give up an option if one day we wanted to make four bedroom home to have that extra CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the back yard? CATHERINE MANNO : No the side CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh on the side CATHERINE MANNO : Yea breezeway. JOSEPH MANNO : That space between the garage and the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh I see. JOSEPH MANNO : Well in case one of the kids ever decide to come back or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea because if it’s an attached garage you don’t have an issue. JOSEPH MANNO : Right you don’t need the breezeway I believe is seven and a half feet wide and I believe if it was eight feet and it was only ten feet away from the house we wouldn’t need the side yard variance which I could possibly move it but I have so much room. I believe I’m 65 feet from my property line to the garage so MEMBER DANTES : It says 55 on the plans. JOSEPH MANNO : Oh is it 55 okay I’m sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a very wide lot. JOSEPH MANNO : Yea it’s very wide and if we had to we could always push it over another foot we got plenty of room. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CATHERINE MANNO : Also we were juggling with options of what type of home to put on our property so we wouldn’t encroach on the wetlands and it ended up being that the side of my family room the family room will end up on the side where it’s like it goes outside and that’s why I’d like to put my pool for that reason and also because I can’t go back cause of the wetlands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you’re proposing all of the septic in the front yard along with driveways and so on. JOSEPH MANNO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let’s see what the Board Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I don’t really have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I think the plan mitigates any detriment to the wetlands that’s favorable for the locations in the side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they’re very substantial side yard setbacks that are being maintained even with the proposal. Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You have almost 300 feet of road frontage so you could see why the side yards are so great. JOSEPH MANNO : Also if I may say we originally had the house laid out with the bedrooms that are upstairs all one level and we realized that we’d just be taking up too much and being closer to the wetlands so that’s the reason why we actually had it redesigned and put those two rooms for my kids above so that we could kind of like shorten the span that we’re using on the property so which brought us down to even less coverage than what we’re allowed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING : This going to be brand new construction so did you entertain the idea of attaching the garage to the house so that you would not require a variance for that? CATHERINE MANNO : We did but again we want that option of having a fourth bedroom if we have to. JOSEPH MANNO : We could always attach it afterwards in the future in case one of the kids ever decides to come back. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CATHERINE MANNO : And also the design of the house was that way so you know we did juggle with many different home designs to accommodate that property and MEMBER HORNING : So do you have a building permit? JOSEPH MANNO : No we don’t. CATHERINE MANNO : We needed to come here first. We have D.E.C. approval, Board of Health approval. JOSEPH MANNO : Everything is in place already. CATHERINE MANNO : We need this and MEMBER HORNING : I mean to build a house you wouldn’t be coming to us just to build a house. JOSEPH MANNO : Right no no we understand that. CATHERINE MANNO : We’re here just for the variances obviously. MEMBER HORNING : For the garage. JOSEPH MANNO : For the garage and the pool which the pool could be brought a little closer I imagine. I mean he has it drawn on the site plan as being further away. I think we’re going to just bring it a lot closer. MEMBER HORNING : So you’re requesting a variance for the garage location just for aesthetic sort of futuristic reasons? JOSEPH MANNO : Correct. CATHERINE MANNO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? CATHERINE MANNO : I actually have a question. That foot of the garage height do we have to change that or we could just leave it as CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I think what we’ll do is since you can our obligation is to ensure that the minimum reasonable number of variances granted when justified is what we’re looking for so if it’s reasonable to reduce it and get rid of that variance it’s like a foot and something it shouldn’t be a big burden and you won’t have to have a variance it’ll just be a side yard location ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting so instead of three variances we’ll be looking at two variances which is really just the location of the pool proposed pool location, the proposed accessory garage. CATHERINE MANNO : So what do we do we have to now have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You just redo the drawings for the garage that’s all with the conforming height ask the architect. CATHERINE MANNO : Everything we still move forward with the other or we have to still wait to do that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we will have a determination within two weeks. We meet again two weeks from today in the evening and that’s when we deliberate. Public hearings are for fact finding to see what issues are involved and then we write up a draft decision and then we deliberate on it and vote. CATHERINE MANNO : So in other words before the two weeks before we meet again I should have that revised? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be good for you to submit a revised to the office and then we can indicate that the plans were amended to reduce to eliminate one of the variances. Anything else from anybody anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended height of the proposed accessory garage. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6943 – ROBERT NORTON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Robert Norton #6943. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s January 26, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for “as built” deck addition to existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 2120 Gillette Drive in East Marion. Hi how are you? JOAN CHAMBERS : Hi my name is Joan Chambers. I’m acting as Mr. Norton’s agent in this matter. There’s a previous variance on this property which allowed the screened porch to have a setback of only 16 feet from the rear yard and Mr. Norton under the mistaken impression that as long as he didn’t get any closer to his rear yard then the screened porch was built at 10 foot by 20 foot deck some years ago and he’s in the process of trying to sell his property and this was brought to his attention so I submitted for a building permit to get the C.O. revised on his house to include the deck and at that point referred me to the Board for a variance on the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could we have that prior with the 16 foot setback? JOAN CHAMBERS : I have a copy of it that I submitted 1976 it’s quite old. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s in the file that’s okay Joan we have it. JOAN CHAMBERS : I think the only MEMBER HORNING : 2117 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2117 I’ll look it up. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yea I think the only thing noted on a prior variance was that the screened porch was to remain a screen porch not to become an enclosed part of the residence at any point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board anybody else questions, anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6937 – JONATHAN TIBBET CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jonathan Tibbet # 6937. This is a request for variance from Article III Section 280-15F and Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s January 27, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) proposed in location other than the code required rear yard or front yard on waterfront property, 2) more than the maximum code allowable lot coverage of 20% located at 185 Willow Point Rd. (adj. to dug canal) in Southold. HI Pat. So this is an accessory swimming pool partially in a side yard. PAT MOORE : Well actually when this is Andrew Gambone of Gembatone I’ll never get it right I’m sorry Andrew the architect and he and I were sitting down together and I guess when the building inspector looked at it and the associate in his office it was so close that it was put in a I guess identified to be put in a side yard but in fact it is directly behind the existing deck so it’s not truly in a side yard. The patio around it is a masonry on grade and so that we could have corrected by the Building Department since I that’s been clarified. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought so. I looked at it and I thought what side yard are we talking about? PAT MOORE : Well yea the side it was just very close and they I guess when they drew the line it looked like it might be just slightly in the side yard but it’s just slightly out of the side yard so MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The design intention was to put it in a rear yard and not in the side yard PAT MOORE : Right yes we were trying to make this everything conform to the maximum extent possible so ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SHCNEIDER : Right so you knew that when you were drawing that up so I don’t want to put in the side let’s put PAT MOORE : Just in the rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we’re looking at lot coverage. PAT MOORE : Correct we are looking at lot coverage. That we could not avoid. The existing deck that is that actually received a variance when the Kubiaks owned the property that is a very nice above grade six inches above grade mahogany deck and the client would really like to keep it. The alternative would have been to make it out of masonry on grade but there is a step down so that’s why it was designed the way it was when the Kubiak’s owned the property and as I said the Zoning Board had granted the variance for that particular deck. It’s not a large deck it just allows some space for an outdoor table and living space. I did do the research Mr. Horning I know you always ask me the there are lots of variances in this community because it is a well-established older community. The subdivision is map of Willow Point. There are two variances particularly similar to this one. One was the Cornell Zoning variance that was a two percent lot coverage over the lot coverage and the Board granted that feeling that that was a very minimal variance request and also the Donadic property which is right next door is going under some major renovations to the house I’m sure you noticed but the variances were granted for I believe a pool, patios when the original house was there. I don’t know what they’re doing today I’m not privy to that but MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Do you have the file numbers? PAT MOORE : Yes they actually are in the decision itself and they’re attached as an exhibit to the whole packet. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The applications? PAT MOORE : Yes so you have both and I’ll refer to them as Cornell and Donadic. So as you can see when we started this process I’m sorry CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold one second. PAT MOORE : Okay so they’re not using the house parallel to the house they’re using the back of the property? BOARD ASSISTANT : They’re using the property line. PAT MOORE : Okay that explains it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So using the rear property line. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yea they were using the bulkhead line which is on an angle that’s why it caught BOARD ASSISTANT : how it ended up being a small portion in the side yard this little sliver. PAT MOORE : Thank you so I guess we do need the variance for the side thank you Vicki. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have any idea what percentage in the side yard? BOARD ASSISTANT : Not a lot that’s all I can tell you. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well actually it is a lot. It’s like the whole thing is in the side yard then. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not the whole thing just a portion from here to here. BOARD ASSISTANT : The patio is on grade. PAT MOORE : It looks like it bisects the deck. If you took that rectangle maybe you can show us what the Building Department is using as the line so we can just so we understand. BOARD ASSISTANT : As soon as you hit the deck that’s the end of your rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So most of it then is technically in a side yard. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That would be the northern corner of the existing deck not the house the deck. PAT MOORE : This is the only deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right that’s what we’re looking at. BOARD ASSISTANT : That’s attached to the house and it’s raised so that’s the back of your house. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : To the northern corner of the deck no the other one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : These are technical calculations for all intents and purposes this looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and it looks like it’s in the rear yard. I mean when it takes all of us that much time to figure it out then it really is technical and it has no adverse impact whatsoever. The lot coverage you’ve got priors for other variances in the area. PAT MOORE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from anybody, George or Gerry or Ken, Eric? MEMBER HORNING : No. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6942 – KEITH and LYNETTE KANE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Keith and Lynette Kane #6942. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s February 17, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct a screened porch addition to existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet and 2) following proposed construction the existing accessory garage will be located in other than the code required rear yard located at 335 Village Lane in Orient. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning Michael Kimack for the applicants. The screen porch does follow the line of the existing home. It runs from the property line runs from 7.8 to 7.2 as the direct line of the porch goes back. If you look at the building set of plans the interior of it this is really the only place for the porch it comes off the kitchen. The house has been added on to ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting renovated with a bedroom set and the living room and the kitchen and the dining room set this is the logical place the only place in order to locate the porch basically. It’s an odd piece of property I guess if you can extend the back a little bit we wouldn’t (inaudible) because it’s like a bit T on the back side we’re almost there but unfortunately given the limitation of that first section of property and the desire of my clients in order to have an enjoyment for the deck I’m sorry for the porch this is really the only place to put it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we’re going from 7.8 to 7.2 slight little angle. MIKE KIMACK : Only because yea only because of the slight angle of the property that one side yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we did as you know site inspection and there’s a very substantial solid wood fence that provides privacy along that property line the side yard. Property line is enormous lot for Orient I was surprised. You drive down Village Lane and then all of a sudden it’s like what? MIKE KIMACK : It’s like a big T. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s think anything else. Yea this is just a technicality. The garage isn’t moving. It is where it is. MIKE KIMACK : That was the recommendation it would be too costly to move the garage basically to the end of the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what for another few feet backwards farther? MIKE KIMACK : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn’t make any sense. Eric anything? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? We’re trying to catch up have you noticed? MIKE KIMACK : Wow we should have more of those arraignments. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it’s quite straight forward Mike you know that. It’s not going to be seen from the street. It will have no impact on the character of the street. MIKE KIMACK : I always come here with my hat in my hand cause I never know what issue may arise so try to cover it. MEMBER DANTES : These have been straight forward applications. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : it’s pretty unusual for us to have such uncomplicated ones. MIKE KIMACK : It was a straight forward application it appeared so. I didn’t look like to be any red flags that might of popped up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In fact the neighbor appears to have an accessory structure right there on their property that would be (inaudible) the garage or whatever is certainly going to block any view they might have of this proposed porch so. MIKE KIMACK : At least from the porch they’ll have a very nice view towards the vacant area of the back yard towards the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6939 – RALPH and JOAN VIVINETTO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Ralph and Joan Vivinetto #6939. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s February 22, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) less than the code required combined side yard of 35 feet located at 2595 Wells Ave. (adj. to Jockey Creek) in Southold. Would you state your name for the record please? RALPH VIVINETTO : My name is Ralph Vivinetto. JOAN VIVIENTTO : Good afternoon I’m Joan Vivientto. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nice to meet you both. You are proposing a single side yard setback at 6 feet the code requires a minimum of 15 and a combined side yard setback of 14.5 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. We’ve all inspected the property so we’re familiar with your home and you’re the layout of your house on the property. So tell us why you need to build on the side yards build out to the side instead of the front yard or rear yard. RALPH VIVINETTO : The side we need to put another bedroom because we have no room in the house. It’s just a little bit over thirteen hundred square feet. JOAN VIVINETTO : Excuse me one second. We can’t go in the back because we’re on the water. We’re on Jockey Creek so we’re limited to that that’s why we’re building on either side. RALPH VIVINETTO : And I have two grandchildren so we need more room and we’re going to put a two car garage and a breezeway going through so when they are up there they don’t have to go outside in the winter time they can just go through the breezeway. JOAN VIVINETTO : They can go up to their bedrooms up there. RALPH VIVINETTO : And on the left side on the north side of the property we want to put a fifteen by twenty three room there because there’s no room downstairs at all. We have a small room that used to be a bedroom we made a T.V. room so we can all sit together and we want to eliminate that even and go into the new area so we can all have a big couch and sit down cause there’s no room in the house at all and basically that’s just for more room. It’s a small house. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any reason why you can’t give us at least one ten foot side yard? This is for emergency access you know to get emergency equipment fire fighters and so on. If you have a six foot on one side and an eight and a half on the other that’s really tight for that purpose. That’s why we in part have side yard setbacks (MACHINE STOPPED RECORDING) MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Here’s your this is the side that we want the ten foot we would grant the ten foot side yard. Now your architect perhaps or you if you wanted to move if you wanted to keep the fifteen feet you might be able to move this part of the new construction just an idea. I’m not telling you what to do. RALPH VIVINETTO : So we can keep the fifteen feet by moving it out in front of the house? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You may do that but you have to maintain ten foot well you can’t get any closer to ten put it that way alright? So see here you’re eleven feet off at this corner so probably somewhere in this neighborhood right here you’re probably going to be ten follow me? RALPH VIVINETTO : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Cause I understand this is going to be your living room? RALPH VIVINETTO : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So fifteen feet you want to cut it down to thirteen or something it’s going to get kind of narrow. It’s just an idea. RALPH VIVINETTO : So if we move it up more JOAN VIVINETTO : Then we’d be able to keep the fifteen. CHAIRPERSON WEISAMN : That’s just something you should talk to your architect about. He might have aesthetic reasons for roof pitches and stuff like that. RALPH VIVINETTO : But whatever your saying you still have to be ten feet from the boundary line to whatever we do? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. So talk to them and we’ll just amend the relief. RALPH VIVINETTO : Ten feet from the closest part of the property and the house? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Right on that side. JOAN VIVINETTO : Thank you . ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting (APPARENTLY WHEN MACHINE STOPPED RECORDING IT MISSED THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING SUBJECT TO REDUCING THE NORTH SIDE TO 10’ MIN. MOTION SECONDED BY MEMBER GOEHRINGER. ALL IN FAVOR 5-0) HEARING # 6898 – FRANK J. and ELIZABETH G. KELLY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Frank J. and Elizabeth Kelly # 6898. This was adjourned so we don’t need to read the Notice into the record again. Dan give us an update. DAN ROSS : Thank you. Dan Ross for the applicant Frank and Elizabeth Kelly and at the end of my presentation I’m going to ask for an adjournment basically of the hearing but I just want to bring you up to date and you’ll recall that at the first hearing date on this application you requested the Building Department to investigate the applicant’s assertion that this was a pre- existing use and the Building Department did that and issued a Pre C.O. and I’d like to make that part of the record. There were restrictions in the Pre C.O. that the applicants have filed a second ZBA application with respect to those restrictions but in the meantime I’m going to be discussing with the Building Department the restrictions in the Pre C.O. to try to work it out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay good now there’s two things here. You have the Pre C.O. then this hearing is closed because it is clear that you don’t require site plan if you have a Pre C.O. DAN ROSS : I’ve got to put it in CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine put it in the record we now have a Pre C.O. for the use the marina use. We have two choices because this application is now moot because you have the Pre C.O. you can request that this be withdrawn today and we will vote to do that and we’re done. The other application you have before us will proceed to here if in fact it comes to that. If you can work out your issues with the Building Department then you could withdraw that also prior to the hearing and we’ll return your check. Well I have to ask permission to return it but I would because there wouldn’t have been any hearing or you know we’ll do something small minor administrative percentage or something but now Dan do you want to do that just ask the Board to accept your request to withdraw this application on this issue of the C.O. Pre C.O.? DAN ROSS : On the basis of the Pre C.O. and that’s going to be clear in a Board’s determination that it was on the basis of the Pre C.O. that the matter was withdrawn? ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct that will be in this recorded transcript otherwise we have to write a written decision which simply reflects the obvious which is that you got your Pre C.O. and therefore you don’t need site plan approval that the Building Department knows that if you have a Pre C.O. DAN ROSS : I would rather have the decision to tell the truth and because we’ve come here and we’ve now come here twice. It doesn’t need to be a lengthy decision just that the Pre C.O. was issued and on that basis the applicant withdrew the complaint the application the applicant withdrew the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well no we wouldn’t be writing it on the basis of withdrawal. We would be simply stating the facts which is that a Pre C.O. was issued by the Building Department right and as a consequence site plan approval is not required that’s all. DAN ROSS : That’s fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you withdraw it we don’t do anything if you want a decision that’s what it’s going to say. T. A. DUFFY : It would actually be a denial because it’s moot and you won’t be granting any relief so they’d be denying your application based on a Pre C.O. and the mootness of the application. DAN ROSS : The fact is there are two other actions going on and what this Board says about it is important with respect to those other actions. If this Board says nothing about it there’s no value in having come to this decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright we’ll write a decision. DAN ROSS : I don’t mean to put you through the effort for no reason. We are in the Supreme Court on this matter and my client has a temporary restraining order preventing him from using his property in certain ways so when I go to the Supreme Court and I say the ZBA ruled I won’t e able to say that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bottom line is we will write a determination and you were originally requesting a reversal of the building inspector’s determination and that reversal is now moot because there is a Pre C.O. issued okay that’s what’s going to be said in the decision. DAN ROSS : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so that’s it for now alright? ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just want to say something on the record. Dan as you know, I’ve been on this Board for a long time. We’ve made determinations on these types of properties more uniquely on this particular piece of property I rented boat slips from this gentleman for seven years okay notwithstanding the fact we went to the marina at one point in the one on the opposite side of Nassau Point or the lower side of Nassau Point and we made determinations probably not necessarily on the record but stating that marinas like this are not marinas. They are in a fact boat areas or boating areas that people rent slips to they have no significance to the word marina because it doesn’t meet the characteristics of the marinas that we knew okay and the marinas that existed to date okay so therefore I am not in favor of the building inspector’s determination of referring to this as a marina. It does not have any characteristics of a marina except for boat renting or boat using areas and that does not give it in my opinion the significance of a marina. I just wanted to go on the record. DAN ROSS : The Nassau Point situation was that zoned MI? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Was that zoned MI? DAN ROSS : Yes. This property is zoned marina MI. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I understand that and I think it was in it was not properly zoned when they zoned it okay. DAN ROSS : And that’s for the Town Board to address. MEMBER GOEHRINGR : I understand that. I’m just making a statement that’s all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it’s not our jurisdiction anyway. We will write a determination and we’ll go forth from there. DAN ROSS : Thank you . KATHLEEN KNAPP : I’m Kathleen Knapp a person of interest. I live across the canal and I submitted a phot in January do you have that in your files? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we do. KATHLEEN KNAPP : I think perhaps the Board misinterpreted what is actually in this photo. The first three boats up to the dock belong to the Childs currently the Morriseys. I would like I was totally confused by what he was saying and maybe the Board can explain what is actually going on. What are the restrictions, what is he trying to change? I understood initially was the boat size of the boat that was going in and as you can see from the photo as you get to the bridge it’s ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting very narrow. All that we want is a good neighbor to follow the rules that have been in place for a number of years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there’s two things here. First of all what is before this Board now is not substance of what this Pre C.O. says. It’s merely the fact that the Building Department did the research and decided that this was a pre-existing boat basin whatever you want to call it. We all agree that it’s been there for a long time. That’s clear that the neighbors have testified to that and so on. Now that determination has been made and if that had not been made then site plan approval from the Planning Board would have been required but because the Building Department determined it had existed previously and issued this Pre C.O. for the use site plan approval is not required. That’s all that was before this Board. Now you certainly can have access to the Pre C.O. through our office which is now part of this file to see what it says. There is a potential hearing coming up we’re not sure whether it will be or it won’t be but that’s what Mr. Ross was referring to that there are some questions about how the Pre C.O. was written in his mind and so KATHLEEN KNAPP : How does the Board interpret the Pre C.O.? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don’t interpret the Pre C.O. KATHLEEN KNAPP : The Building Department does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Department does that that’s correct. KATHLEEN KNAPP : Could I ask Mr. Ross CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well not really. You can do that out there but here you have to address the Board. If there are questions or concerns about the Pre C.O. then the Building Department is the place to inquire and to make known your comments to explain the photograph or anything else you want them to know. KATHLEEN KNAPP : Does this Board know what is before the Supreme Court? Is that an inappropriate question that he said the Riverhead Supreme Court? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have absolutely no idea what he was referring to. KATHLEEN KNAPP : Okay so I’ll have to speak to him in the lobby? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. Is there anything else from anybody on the Board? Is there anyone else in the audience? Wait, wait don’t talk come up here and state your name. MARYLOU PALMER : I’m Marylou Palmer. I’m also an adjacent neighbor. I’m just a little puzzled that now we’re getting close to boating season and I was just concerned as to what would be ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting more there before all this is completed only for the fact that we have been coming here month after month after month of postponement, postponement. I’m anxious to get my boat in the water and I’m sure Mr. Kelly wants to get boats in the water also but does he have to conform to the twenty foot or can he just arbitrarily put whatever he wants in until all this is taken care of? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it would appear that whatever is on the Pre C.O. is what is permitted. If the Pre C.O. changes then what’s permitted will change. Right now I think it says twenty foot. MARYLOU PALMER : It’s twenty foot and as Mr. Knapp said it is really very narrow. I know you don’t want to hear this and you’ve probably seen it. My concern is safety. Safety to her property, safety to the other boats, safety to the people that rent there and I guess as a mother and a neighbor I’m concerned about that and the last thing I want is you know an ambulance to come there maybe that’s stretching the point a little bit but it is concern not only for me but the other people. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well all I can tell you is that those concerns can be reiterated and expressed should another public hearing take place. If it does it will be because the substance of the Pre C.O. is being challenged by Mr. Kelly through his attorney and so that’s one option. If he can work out something agreeable with the Building Department we won’t have to hear it but if he can’t he has a choice of coming to this Board with another application to take a look at the substance of the Pre C.O. that’s it in a nut shell. If you have additional questions you have the right to call our counsel our attorney who can talk with you about it but when we have an open application the Board can only discuss things before the public in a legally noticed meeting. MARYLOU PALMER : Just maybe it’s the wrong time to ask this question but if a decision has been made will the adjoining neighbors like the Moriseys and Knapps get a notification that this is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes if there’s another hearing it’s another application yes if we have a hearing MARYLOU PALMER : So we won’t be in the blind as to something going through? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no if there’s another public hearing the same thing happens again. You get legally noticed a yellow sign goes up on the property with a date and it tells you exactly what the hearing is about. MARYLOU PALMER : I appreciate that. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Also again our records are available through F.O.I.L. in our office and also the Building Department. MARYLOU PALMER : We can get a copy of the Pre C.O. we can get it today? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can through the Building Department. Go to the Building Department it’s on record. MARYLOU PALMER : Okay thank you so much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re welcome anyone else? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to 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 # 6935 – RONALD and PATRICIA McGRATH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Ronald and Patricia McGrath #6935. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s January 20, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct a covered porch addition and legalize “as built” deck addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet and 2) more than the code maximum allowable lot coverage of 20% located at 1330 Sigsbee Rd. in Laurel. Is someone here to represent that application? Hi would you please state and spell your name for the record. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting WALTER HYDE III : Yes hi Walter Hyde III. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now this appears to be a covered a porch addition that’s open. WALTER HYDE III : Yes can I approach I have to provide my affidavit of posting and okay yes so we’re proposing a covered porch addition to the front of the home. The home is pre-existing non-conforming with the front yard setback. We’re trying to ask for in my opinion the minimal width required for usable covered porch and it was under my understanding that because of the photos and discussions that I had with Zoning Board prior to the hearing that the as built deck was going to be accepted and not a part of the variance but you know I’m willing to include that if needed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I suspect what I think what’s going on here is that the front yard setback is proposed at 24 feet correct? WALTER HYDE III : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that’s for the porch. The as built deck in the rear yard is now counted as part of lot coverage and so you’re also requesting a 27.3% lot coverage where the code permits a maximum of 20%. WALTER HYDE III : Sure and I believe there was some controversy surrounding that porch. I later had determined that porch the rear porch that is on the property card that’s always been there it’s actually on grade so it was my understanding that porches on grades don’t count. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they’re roofed over. WALTER HYDE III : They’re not. The rear porch is not roofed over. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The rear porch is not roofed over. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Take a look at the pictures that we have it’s definitely not on grade. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No it’s a deck. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It’s an open deck. MEMBER DANTES : On grade usually means at like the grass level. WALTER HYDE III : Okay understandable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea no it’s a thirteen foot by nineteen foot 247 square foot existing wood deck. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting WALTER HYDE III : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that’s counting in the lot coverage. WALTER HYDE III : The old survey shows a beveled corner and at some point someone had squared it off so it’s really the only difference. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so it’s a relatively new deck however. WALTER HYDE III : No it’s actually over I would say twenty thirty years old. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) WALTER HYDE III : The deck had gates. They were removed during construction so they may be in one picture but not on another but there was swing gates there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there was a railing of some sort around this deck? WALTER HYDE III : Yea there is a 36 inch railing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So tell us about the nature of Sigsbee Rd. Are there other prior variances for lot coverage and front yard setbacks? WALTER HYDE III : So I didn’t research the recent public records but I did photograph down the street several other properties that have actually enclosed front yard porches that seem to be violating the setbacks. I have seen some seriously large homes in this area which I assume had to of gone for a site coverage variance. I have photographs of some of those items if you would like me to share. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea go ahead. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I’d like you to start with the boulevard which Peconic Bay Boulevard and work your way up from there and you’ll see that that’s probably where most of the non- conformances okay WALTER HYDE III : South of this lot. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : South way down to the boulevard which runs parallel to 25 and you’ll see where that’s the area where most of the non-conformance is. WALTER HYDE III : That’s correct. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That doesn’t negate it as being something significant for this particular piece of property because there are all kinds of setbacks on that block. It’s a 1926 subdivision zoning came in in ’57 and the majority or at least half of those houses were built just about the time or just before zoning not necessarily this one okay but and give us you know some inkling of what you think those setbacks are. You can probably measure them. These are seasonal houses many of them. If you see somebody home just tell them you’re doing a little measurement for the Board or whatever. WALTER HYDE III : Oh you would like me to go physically and take some measurements. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I would like you to come up with a couple okay. WALTER HYDE III : Sure that’s not a problem. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You’ll see from that particular point on the first one being a corner lot and the house is relatively close to the property line and then it goes up from there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can also if you know how to use the software you can use Google Earth and make WALTER HYDE III : Sure I’ll go with the laser and go take some measurements it’s not a problem. So you would like me to submit some kind of schematic diagram of the street and some adjacent setbacks? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea whatever non-conforming and also there are we’ve given a number of variances along Sigsbee and if you can do a little research and find out what some of those other variances were for non-conforming lot coverage and setbacks we can make that as part of the determination because it’s characteristic of the neighborhood. WALTER HYDE III : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have two steps at one foot each is that it twelve inch a step on this proposed front deck? WALTER HYDE III : I think the tread is twelve inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pardon? WALTER HYDE III : The tread is twelve inches the riser. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you got two treads correct? WALTER HYDE III : Correct. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that’s two feet and then you have am I reading this correctly six feet approximately of porch. WALTER HYDE III : Six feet of porch correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is it a hardship to reduce that somewhat by another foot or two? WALTER HYDE III : I can make the treads the minimum nine inch and cut off six inches in my opinion the porch is really not going to function for two people a table and a chair two chairs at less than six feet. I just fear that you know to go through all of this and have something that’s not functional is a shame. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. MEMBER DANTES : What we’re looking at steps don’t count. Really you’re at 24.1 (inaudible) WALTER HYDE III : Okay yea I tried to take worst case scenario. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that’s what the Notice of Disapproval showed 24 feet. Any questions from the Board, George? MEMBER HORNING : I don’t have any. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Only the fact that I know a lot about this house and it is very it looks very nice in its completed form of course it’s not completed now as the reditioning is done but the key factor is to key into those setbacks those non-conforming setbacks. WALTER HYDE III : Not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No I don’t have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Just one thing in your application reason for appeal number four says the property abuts a forest preserve. Is that isn’t that the property owned by Pawlowski? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No it’s a horse farm. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a buffer? ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It’s all owned by High Wind. It’s all on the seventy plus acres owned by High Land. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : At that location? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. It well yes, yes you’re right a portion of it it does go down that far you’re absolutely correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then it’s the Pawlowski property past this house. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea I’m just no you have to the whole MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The green card for lot 122-7-9 he just submitted to us? BOARD ASSISTANT : He submitted one. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I just want to clear that up. I think that’s MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Most of it is woods a portion is the Pawlowski property you’re absolutely right. I forgot we were down that far I apologize. BOARD ASSISTANT : This is the AG parcel which is High Wind and this is Pawlowski’s. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He’s butting up against Pawlowskis. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay. So it’s just for the record it’s not a forest preserve it’s private property that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s wooded it’s undeveloped it’s an undeveloped lot. WALTER HYDE III : Yea it was under my understanding that it was not to be developed ever possibly so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh it’s going to be developed. WALTER HYDE III : Oh yea oh oh. Okay thank you for that clarification. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They’re attempting to develop. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Anything else from the Board? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) WALTER HYDE III : To clarify I should email the measurements the diagram I create to Vicki. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Send it to Vicki she’ll forward to us. I actually probably should of closed subject to receipt of that information. I’m going to amend this I’m going to re-open this hearing for the sole purpose of closing it differently alright? Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : 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) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m going to close this hearing subject to receipt of additional information about non-conforming lot coverage and front yard setbacks along Sigsbee Rd. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6941 – ALFRED J. TERP, JR. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Alfred J. Terp Jr. #6941. This is a request for variance from Article X Section 280-46 and the Building Inspector’s January 11, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct a 5,573 sq. ft. retail building at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 15 feet located at 28195 Main Rd. (aka State Route 25) (corner Griffing St.) in Cutchogue. PAT MOORE : Thank you good afternoon Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Terp. Al Terp is here today Al Terp senior is here. He’s right behind me right there and Mr. Pinzinno who is his longtime family attorney is here and he will also provide some information if necessary. This application as you pointed out is to demolish the existing brick building that is to the east of the existing shopping center on the corner of Griffing Ave. and Main Rd. and the proposed building in order to match the front elevation as far as setbacks and covered porch. In particular the front yard setbacks are necessary variances are necessary otherwise the building is conforming so what I’d like to put on the record is that the existing building is in fact because there is a slight angle on when the main building the corner building was constructed and the dimensions of the property rather than starting at 15 for the foundation of the main building it’s actually at 13.1 and that’s because of the slight angle and you can see from the existing conditions survey that at one end of the existing building it is at 16.6 on the westerly side and 15.1 on the easterly side so it creates the slightest angle resulting in the foundation starting on the farthest end at 13.1 so that’s our closest point of the foundation. Thereafter it has the overhang again matching the architectural style of the other building and providing covered walkways. The intention here is to create what the hamlet study described as a walkable hamlet allowing the interconnection of other commercial properties to the east and the continuous walk between the two buildings. Also the connection does carry to the back of the property to the parking lot so there is a great deal of thought through on this design and we’re here to answer specific ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting questions. I think that my explanation my outline for the variance is pretty clear so I don’t want to rehash everything that’s already on the record but I do want to point out some issues that may or may not come up by the neighbors. The back property the rest of the property pardon me is a parking lot and the parking lot was negotiated some years ago between Mr. Terp when the corner building was being built and the Town of Southold asked to lease the back of the property for a dollar a year and that is how the Cutchogue hamlet has provided most of its parking to most of its commercial properties in the area. I have a copy of the lease that was executed between the town and Mr. Terp back in 2003 after some negotiation and it sets forth all the terms the most important terms were that the municipality the Town of Southold had to pave the parking lot and line it and so make the improvements for the benefit of the town and as long as obviously we the Terps continue to be able to use it for their purposes and the community can equally use it as a municipal parking lot. Also in the negotiation Mr. Terp was aware and the town was aware that there was a plan for phase two of this development to ultimately build this proposed building so at the time that the let’s call it the SP-1 the site plan of the project as well as the parking areas it did show an area that mimics the size actually this building is a little smaller than the foot print that was allocated for in 2003 when this project was actually being developed and the parking lot was being developed so this was all planned out but now we are here today and its moving forward with the plan that has been certainly for the last almost fifteen years a dream of Mr. Terp’s. Among the other documents that I’m providing as far as variances in the area the hamlet of Cutchogue is somewhat unique. There are lots of variances lots of use variance application that have been denied, approved over the years. The most applicable I would say variance that we are going to provide for the record is the variance for the gas station for the canopy that was added in ’92 so the canopy did require a variance and it got a variance for a canopy at three feet from the property line so that is the history of variances in this area this being the most analogous variance application. It appears also that in ’92 nothing simple I believe it may have ended up as a litigated matter that ultimately got resolved so Mr. Goehringer probably remember that even the canopy ultimately got approved but went through a little bit of litigation to get there. I will present both those documents into your record so you have it. What I’ll do is I’m sure that there’s commentary here so we will I’ll leave the plan here in front and then I’d like to respond to comments. MEMBER DANTES : Can I just ask you a question? Just with calculating the front yard setback did they take that from the bulk schedule or did they take the average of the average setback of building? PAT MOORE : Well this is hamlet business I believe they used the actual code. They didn’t use the average setback hamlet business is 15 feet to code. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I’d like to put in to the record the fact that we received comments from the Planning Board and the Planning Board the only variance that this applicant is before this Board for is a front yard setback variance of 5 feet where the code requires 15. However it’s replacing an existing building with a 2 foot 4 inch front yard setback. The Planning Board supports this variance because it will maintain the character of the street wall you know instead of jumping it way back and having this kind of open expanse it continues the design or characteristics of the actual hamlet street scape so they’re supporting this and I think that‘s all it’s going to be basically in alignment with the other building that is there now with the roof over and the setback and side wall. PAT MOORE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George do you have any questions? MEMBER HORNIING : Sure does the Post Office are they leasing property is that how they operate? PAT MOORE : (asking her client) Do we know if that’s a lease or the next door neighbor that the post office is that a lease with the owner do we know? I don’t know that I know the answer to that. You’re asking just for curiosity more than MEMBER HORNING : I’m looking at the property card a little more than curiosity but to the north it’s A. J. Terp Jr. to the south Main Rd., east A.J. Terp Jr. and west L. A. Terp. PAT MOORE : I’m sorry I should of asked more what your question was about. This property actually is a compilation of all those tax map numbers. The parcels are pieces of the different parcels and right now the existing brick building is on its own tax map its own parcel but in order to accomplish the overall goals here they have actually they’re combining the parcels and putting it all under one title so the deeds have that’s in the works but it’s the plan is with a merging of all the parcels together so that’s MEMBER HORNING : Thank you. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Excluding the one that the post office is PAT MOORE : Oh the post office is not it doesn’t belong to the Terps. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is separate. PAT MOORE : Yea. It shows a Steven Cohen on mine but I don’t know if that’s who it is. MEMBER HORNING : So the post office might lease from (inaudible) ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : They might I don’t know the answer. MEMBER HORNING : And everybody shares the parking? PAT MOORE : The post office I believe has some parking on site if I recall it’s not wall to wall. For their own employees and their own functioning there’s a fence and they have parking inside but for the public to come to the post office this provides the parking of everyone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s something else that I want to enter into the record it’s already in the record but I read it the just prior to the first public hearing so none of you were probably here at that hour in the morning just so you have an understanding this application requires site plan approval from the Planning Board and they have requested that they be lead agency. The lead agent on this application for purposes of making a SEQRA determination which is the environmental impacts so I’m going to read you the resolution that the Board passed this morning just so that you understand what’s going on here. For the purposes of SEQRA the following applications are being processed there was more than just this one as part of a coordinated review where the Planning Board has been designated lead agency. Once the SEQRA review has been completed the ZBA is an involved agency shall examine same and incorporate it into our deliberation on these applications therefore following applications will necessarily be adjourned after today’s hearing in order to receive the SEQRA determination so we will hear everything that anyone wants to tell us today and then we will adjourn this without a date so that the Planning Board can take participate their role as lead agent on this application and conduct a full environmental quality review for traffic and other impacts. PAT MOORE : Just a comment I know that’s the directive that you’ve been given but one of the complications with that and I know not just this project but in others when you have a project that’s a Type II it is not reviewed under SEQRA so it doesn’t it stands alone. I understand the goal of SEQRA is the coordination and not to delay the process but my concern on just that issue particularly on this application when you’re dealing with a variance we are designing we have an engineer and we have everything that’s related to the proposed variance. If we don’t know that a variance has been granted and then we go through the Planning Board which is their review of SEQRA is sometimes a little somewhat specific in its design and review so that when the Planning Board starts reviewing this and they start asking for engineering and other specifications on the property the applicant is faced with the design and all of the answers under the SEQRA process that they’re trying to address but with the understanding that a variance will or may or may not be issued so that I understand the philosophy behind it, I understand the law of SEQRA but practically that method of review creates somewhat of a delay and an impractical approach to the review of an application because again when you’re dealing with a variance and that’s why it’s a Type II actions that doesn’t require SEQRA is that ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting that’s kind of a once we get it then we know what the rules are that we’re operating under and our SEQRA review with the Planning Board is much more productive than to analyze things in a what if yes and what if no analysis so as far as their recommendation to do it that way I would ask that the Planning Board and Zoning Board look at the process a little more carefully as far as practically whether it makes sense because I think in the long run while it’s admirable to have a coordinated review it is creating an obstacle and an expense to the review process when we don’t know if the Board we hoped that the Board will grant this. It’s a reasonable request but is putting us in a position of assuming a variance and an analysis of the site plan when in fact it’s still subject to review. CHAIREPRSON WEISMAN : I understand your point. Typically variance relief is a Type II action but when site plan is also required on a commercial property one of the reasons just so people understand this that this coordinated review is set up the way it is suppose we have an application for somebody else requesting a 21 foot setback of some sort and we say fine and then the Planning Board says no you know what you need to move the building over slightly cause you haven’t got the parking yield you know and we’re going to need so now we’ve granted 21 feet and they’re saying you should move it over to 19 feet so then we’ve effectively boxed the applicant in or the Planning Board in terms of their ability to site plan properly by the variance we’ve granted or we have to re-open it an re-hear the whole darn thing again in order to so it’s a chicken and egg kind of thing. PAT MOORE : I know, I know it is a complication and I understand the rational CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It really is not to delay applicants it’s to make sure everybody is on the same page and going through the procedure. PAT MOORE : Well as long as the Planning Board when you’re advising the Planning Board that they don’t start looking at the minutia of engineering which becomes very costly to design in one respect and then start moving things around and redesigning so it’s just we try to be helpful to the business community. I think generally I think all of us in government want to be helpful but we also don’t want to create obstacles so just something to keep in mind. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Also bear in mind that we have a letter from the Planning Board indicating they support the variance which is PAT MOORE : Exactly so I think that we’re in a good position that I think we’re going to be approved but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do understand what you’re talking about. Let’s see if the Board has any questions at this point otherwise we’ll open it up to the audience. ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I just have a quick question. I want to go back to the relief it says the following is proposed construction the structure will have a front yard setback of 5 feet well it’s now it’s less than 5 feet correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2.4 PAT MOORE : Oh presently yea presently it’s 2.4 is the existing building. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No, no, no I mean your proposed new building. PAT MOORE : The new building is MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That one corner. PAT MOORE : The overhang yea, yea, yea, it could it might be 4 feet at this point. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay well the overhang is what ten? PAT MOORE : It’s a ten foot overhang yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What corner is that the north PAT MOORE : That’s the easterly corner. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The north east corner it looks like it’s 13.1 to the corner of the building? PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So subtract ten so and so there’s 3.1 PAT MOORE : I’m not sure it’s a ten foot overhang is it (asking her client) eight foot overhang. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh eight foot okay then it’s back to like a 5 foot okay fine. I thought we were using 15 and 10 but PAT MOORE : Yea the architect didn’t give us a very clear letter. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What I’m trying to get at is that we are granting the right number if we do that if we do decide to grant this that we grant the right number like 5 feet and you need you know PAT MOORE : Yea and we need 4 exactly. What I’m going to do is double check with the architect cause you know I just want to be sure that when she does cause we’re doing measurements from lines and a proposed building so we’re relying to some extent on the thickness on lines and on the thickness of material and facades and so on so when you’re at the ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting end measuring that’s where it gets a little tricky so I think the architect was trying to give us dimensions where the post was and the width of the post and the post from the street so I’ll try to get a real simple answer on the overhang. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay I’m good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody down there with questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? Alright let me see if there’s anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application. State your name please. GINGER MAHONEY : Good afternoon my name is Ginger Mahoney and I reside in Cutchogue and I’m a member of the Board of Directors of the Old Town Arts and Crafts Guild Inc. which is a non-profit community oriented 501 C3 volunteer arts organization in existence since 1948. The Guild’s western property lies in the eastern boundary of the land owned by the Terps. We appear today to ask that the Zoning Board deny the variance and not permit construction of a building that would more than double the existing commercial space at 28195 Main Rd. in Cutchogue. The Notice of Disapproval was issued because the site plan does not comply with the required 15 feet front yard setback in the present code. The appeal seeks approval of a variance with a setback of 5.1 feet from the proposed building and 4.1 feet from the building’s overhang in order to conform the appearance of the old and new buildings. Without approval of this variance allowing this building to be constructed as close to Main Rd. as possible there will be insufficient parking on the property to build a 5,573 square foot building and meet the town codes parking requirements. Mr. Terp concedes this is the reality and section two of the page titled area variance reasons where he states that pushing the building away from the front property line will reduce municipal parking. We respectfully disagree with each and every one of the justifications set forth in this appeal. For the hamlet of Cutchogue granting this variance and permitting construction of this building as presently proposed will impair the character and quality of the existing community. This appeal describes this construction as an extension of the existing retail building for which a variance is required to maintain the same architectural style, roof overhand and covered walkway as the present building. Because of the visual similarity of the two buildings the new construction is being marketed as harmonious and in keeping with the community. On the contrary by removing two distinct retail stores and replacing them with five stores having matching facades, windows and doors spanning the length of a 180 feet the symmetry converts the appearance into that of a strip mall which is not in keeping with the nature of the this community and the commercial frontage on the Main Rd. Mr. Terp maintains the problem for which this variance is being sought was not self-created and there is no other solution for it but to grant the variance that the existing building was constructed under a ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting previous code which makes it impossible to connect the walkway and roof overhang without a variance does not mandate it’s approval. There is absolutely no compelling need to connect the new building with the existing one along a straight line. There is presently a walkway along the east side of the existing building which would allow the two buildings to be connected anywhere along the side of the building instead of along Main Rd. To say there is no alternative is plainly untrue. This variance is not needed for conformity between the buildings as we will demonstrate. It is really needed to achieve the necessary parking for the combined commercial space on this property. Thank you for this opportunity to address the Board with these remarks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anyone else? PAULA HEPNER : Good afternoon my name is Paula Hepner and I live in Cutchogue and I’m also a member of the Board of Directors of the Old Town Arts and Crafts Center Guild. For the hamlet of Cutchogue granting this variance will result in a drastic change in the intensity of use of this land and adversely affect the existing level of traffic and parking. Unless this variance is granted there is no way the town’s code parking requirements for this amount of commercial space can be met. The demolition of the two existing stores which total 2,079 sq. ft. and replacing them with five retail stores totaling 5,564 sq. ft. will substantially increase traffic entering and leaving Griffin St. and Main Rd. and add to the congestion that presently exists. Entering and maneuvering within the entrance lane to the municipal lot is already compromised by the reduction of the minimum aisle width from 22 feet to 16.5 feet due to a previously approved non-conforming use exception. If this variance is approved with four parking space on the east side of the existing retail building parked cars would be protruding into the 16.5 foot entrance and exit lane. The town is requiring 72 parking spaces for the combined square footage of the two commercial buildings. This site plan proposes 79 parking spaces. To get that number one extra space was added at the loading dock which is the one I just referred to that will protrude. Two spaces were gained by closing off egress from the Guild’s parking lot into the municipal lot and by counting one space that is actually clearance needed by the carting company to empty the dumpster behind the post office. To gain three to five more spaces the site plan indicates the existing parking lines drawn at 9 foot intervals will be eradicated and in some places replaced with parking spaces of an 8 foot width. If this variance is approved it will condone a deviation from the minimum parking (inaudible) width in order to achieve the number of required parking spaces. The town code’s requirement of 72 parking spaces for retail stores it’s a mere increase of two spaces over the 70 parking spaces that make up the current municipal lot. What this calculation does not take into consideration however is that this is not just a private parking lot restricted to patrons of the commercial businesses. It is a municipal lot that provides parking year round for neighboring businesses such as the Guild which depends on the municipal lot to provide parking for its artists, volunteers and customers. It also serves as overflow parking for the post office customers. It ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting was mentioned that the employee’s park in the post offices own designated lots but we’re not certain of that we think they use the municipal lot as well. This is parking for commercial trucks making deliveries and for the parking needs of the commuters and day trippers who ride the Jitney and the County bus as well as co-workers with whom they carpool. In fact the lease signed between the town and Mr. Terp in 2003 specifically designates spaces 48 to 53 in the northwest area of the property for overnight parking. If this variance is granted there will be no parking allocated for those who use the municipal lot for reasons for other than shopping in the retail stores. Because this is a dual use parking lot the town must study the nature and duration of vehicle usage by the municipal patrons in order to know in any meaningful way how many additional spaces are required to handle their needs. Requiring 72 spaces for retail space is premised on frequent turnover. The commuters and day trippers are not short term transient parkers. If this variance is granted and no parking is allocated to the municipal patrons for every car that parks all day or overnight in one of the 72 spaces and for every commercial truck that takes up four of those parking spaces at one time and there’s a photograph in the back just exactly that the amount of parking required by the code for the retail stores cannot be met. The calculation of 72 spaces also does not take into consideration the tree handicap parking spaces presently behind the two buildings to be demolished nor the twelve spaces in the southeast quadrant of the property between the Guild and the Pharmacy and there’s a photograph in your materials that shows that. I believe those are D and E. These spaces are not accounted for in the survey or the site plan submitted with this appeal therefore the loss of them has not been evaluated. These fifteen spaces are critical to meeting the parking needs of the neighboring businesses such as the Guild and the overnight day parkers. If the variance is approved the people who park in these spaces will take over the spaces set aside for retail parking which will reduce the parking for retail stores to 57 or 64 spaces far fewer than the 79 represented in the site plan and far fewer than the 72 required by the town code. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me just one second before you speak. I just want to let you know member our Fishers Island member George Horning is not leaving because he’s bored. He’s leaving because he can’t get home if he doesn’t catch the ferry out of Orient. He has to go back to New London and then back again on another ferry to Fishers Island. We’ll talk to you later George. Please state your name. BOB KUEN : Hi my name is Bob Kuen. I am president of the Old Town Arts and Crafts Guild. We oppose granting this variance because the Guild will suffer significantly not only during the construction but after the building is completed. If the variance is approved construction of this 5,573 sq. ft. 24 foot high two story commercial building will eradicate the visibility of the Guild to travelers coming east on the Main Rd. The Guild’s building has a setback of 35 feet. The Guild signage in front of its building to call attention to the gallery’s shop is setback 17 feet from the Main Rd. With the proposed building ending at a mere twelve feet from the Guild’s westerly ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting property line not only will visibility of the Guild be seriously be decreased but visibility of the Guild’s sign will be as well. The lack of sight lines to the Guild would discourage potential customers and as a result sales would plummet, jeopardizing continued existence of the Guild. The Guild’s gallery shop is open daily and on weekends and it hosts both indoor and outdoor fundraising events and shows a few times during the year. Unlike the other stores in the hamlet the Guild does not have parking in front of the building on the Main Rd. or across the street at the bank. As already mentioned neither the survey nor the site plan submitted showed there are twelve parking spaces between the Guild and the pharmacy and three parking spots behind the pharmacy. Consequently there is no mention of what the impact would be on removing these fifteen spots from the municipal parking presently available. These spots are critical to the Guild’s customers and volunteers who staff the Guild. They’re critical for artists and crafts people to load and unload their display tables, racks and items for sale. They cannot stop and load or unload out front on the Main Rd. as if they were forced to do this the Guilds minuscule parking lot with only two vehicles entering and leaving the Guild’s parking lot at one time traffic would be backed up along the Main Rd. and resulting bottleneck would be insufferable. The town cannot ignore the reality that this is a dual use parking lot serving the municipal parking needs in Cutchogue and private parking needs of the retail businesses of this property. It is incumbent upon the town to factor into its analysis what the number of parking spaces are required for the dual uses and access the degree to which the 15 spots alleviate congestion during peak parking times and what they’re elimination will mean. The parking lot in back of the Guild’s building holds only three cars. For thirty plus years the Guild has an easement allowing cars to exit from the Guild’s parking lot into the municipal lot. This easement is memorialized in section 3.01A of the 2003 lease between the Town of Southold and Mr. Terp. It specifically prohibits the installation of any permanent parking curbs that would inhibit or impede passage across the easement. Nonetheless the site plan shows a solid curb running the length of the eastern boundary of Mr. Terp’s property. Neither the survey nor the site plan acknowledge or honor the existence of the Guild’s easement. The site plan and survey calculate twenty five spaces along the eastern boundary of Mr. Terp’s property which include two spaces that would block egress from the Guild’s parking lot. If egress from the Guild’s parking lot into the municipal lot is temporarily blocked during construction by cement trucks, demolition carters and other such vehicles this will create both a fire hazard for the Guild and a traffic hazard for the hamlet by forcing cars to enter from and exit the Guild onto the Main Rd. dangerously close to the traffic light at the intersection with New Suffolk Rd. Since 1948 the Old Town Arts and Crafts Guild Inc. has been in operation at this location. It is a historic building and was constructed in the 1800’s. It is an old structure with an old foundation. The Guild has grave concerns over whether in many ways the vibrations from the heavy equipment the pounding the drilling etc. will negatively impact the building’s fragile foundation and walls owing to its age. So that the Guild does not become a casualty in this process we appear here today that the ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting Board deny this variance and send this proposed expansion back to the Terp architects to create a building more appropriate in size and design that does not require a front yard variance and will meet parking code requirements. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else? BARBARA SCHNITZLER : Good afternoon my name is Barbara Schnitzler of New Suffolk. As a New Suffolk resident I will daily be approaching this building head on. I’m asking you to consider not granting a variance to this applicant and here’s why. On their application item number one talks about character. I disagree that this variance will not be detrimental to the character of the hamlet. The proposal will create what the applicant is calling quote a covered walkway eight feet wide by a hundred sixty feet long. It’s actually a hard edged tunnel open on one side. It has nothing to do with the way this hamlet has developed and it does not function as a walkway and I have pictures of how it does function which is there’s seating for the deli you can’t walk on it there’s seating and tables and I don’t think anybody has an objection to Karen’s deli using this area this way but let’s call a spade a spade it’s not a walkway. So this proposed arcade does not quote promote a walkable hamlet. People would just walk on the sidewalks as they’ve always done. In this case most customers anyway will be approaching from the rear where the parking is through another tunnel between two buildings this one is enclosed on both sides and roofed eight feet wide by sixty five feet long. I understand why the applicant wants one giant building tying it to its existing services the services etc. but I don’t understand why the Planning Board, the Zoning Board, the Architectural Review Board or any Southold residents would find the 160 ft. long building in character with anything but a shopping mall. The architects are not local but if they’d look at neighboring hamlets they would of seen a pattern of development which contrasts starkly with this proposal rather than the appearance of one monolithic structure of red brick and aluminum store windows with the giant asphalt roof there’s a great diversity of style, window type, roof line, setbacks, doorways, signage and even awnings instead of a covered walkway. Those are architectural elements which contribute to character and appropriate scale. A minute about scale I didn’t find anything in any other hamlet of this scale even the Willow Hill mini mall complex is composed of a series of smaller buildings of different type and its way recessed from the Main Rd. The east elevation of this proposed design which is completely visible because adjacent properties do have substantial setbacks is a big blank wall with no windows at all. If your roof no longer extends over this covered walkway the eight feet as designed the ridge can actually be made a little bit lower and every little bit helps. Item two in their proposal the benefit sought by the owners cannot be achieved by other methods. I question calling this arcade a benefit except that it increases your usable square footage. I believe the public would see a benefit in some landscaping to soften the hard edges, some setbacks a nice place to wait for the bus would be a community benefit. The future tenants would probably also appreciate the light and visibility ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting which the arcade would block. Maybe the goal of variances should not be to quote achieve the owner’s development design unquote. Maybe it should be to create a more livable, enjoyable, visual satisfying environment for residents while allowing a property owner the ability to develop and profit from their property. Quickly item three the relief requested is not substantial. I believe the square footage that this variance would grant is not substantial relative to the proposed square footage of the building but its impact is substantial. Item five has the alleged difficulty been self-created? Yes I would say it’s been self-created. There’s absolutely no necessity for the quote proposed building to be a continuation of the existing one unquote. The existing building was built years ago. It doesn’t represent an outstanding example of an architectural style that should be replicated and hopefully now we pay more attention to the character and the scale when we add new buildings to our hamlets. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please state your name. LINDA AURIEMMA : Linda Auriemma. I live in New Suffolk and I only learned of this project recently and I guess what disturbs me the most is thinking about the other historic buildings that are all through the hamlet of Cutchogue and this just doesn’t seem to fit. I mean on the east side are you know a hundred year old plus buildings and also on the west we have the church and this is something very contemporary. It reminds me of Tanger Mall and why would we want to put you know something of this type of architecture in the town so I hope something that fits in better with the character and the history of Cutchogue is finally implemented. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? MICHAEL SIMON : Michael Simon I live in New Suffolk and I’m not here to (inaudible) come up with the last few speakers concerning environmental and other impacts of this construction. I am talking about the effect something and perhaps there was a those other things may not have been accurately noticed at all by the applicant. I’m concerned about the clearly known effects were not made public as far as I know on one of the tenants existing there now namely Mr. Styder who is the in 2012 had signed a ten year lease for his maintain of the pharmacy which is still in existence you got ten years he’s got six years left and then there is a clause in the lease for a renewal and this is it’s clearly something that the Board ought to know because it doesn’t look as though this is ever this variance is ever going to get effective even if it were granted because they’re going to be severe obstacles namely this is clearly a breach of a contract that would be called and I would predict that if something like this starts to go forth although I gather it’s going to take a long time to satisfy MEMBER DANTES : Isn’t that a private matter that they can handle internally? ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MICHAEL SIMON : It is yes it’s not part of this case but it is something that is going to happen I think I would be worth knowing particularly if this case is problematic namely that’s I predict that they’ll probably will be filed for an injunction to stop this because (inaudible) satisfying the set of conditions for an injunction on so they would not be able to go forward until the litigation is complete. I mean here you have a case where the current building is going to be raised totally to the ground problem was it’s not (inaudible) there’s not a sitting tenant in it and there’s a big stake in this not to mention what he would pay to acquire business there from the previous pharmacist who is now also the landlord of the buildings so I think it would be useful for the people who hear this even though it’s not legally relevant to this decision to be aware of what the likely future is going to be of this property should it be at least tentatively granted to the applicant. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Mike. Is there anyone else in the audience? GAIL TOMAN : Hi my name is Gail Toman and I reside in Cutchogue and I’m very new to Cutchogue. We found a home here for three years and this is our first year living in this home full time. We have another home in Southampton and I have summered in the Hamptons since I’m seven and I have slowly watched the demise of the Hamptons to what it currently looks like today and so I am kind of here in response to something that I’ve watched as a child make subtle changes like a simple building like this that is very commercial and maybe you have an architectural review board or you don’t. Like I said I’m completely ignorant in terms of how the Town of Southold runs I hope you excuse me in that way but I’m speaking out only because when one small thing gets approved like this and there’s no sensitivity and conformity to design, to visual impact, to parking, to usage it becomes a domino theory in a Main Rd. where people ultimately become a trade parade with enormous development that eventually takes over and creates a suburb without services in the middle of nowhere without any real connection to professional jobs like a major city like Manhattan without the infrastructure being carefully patrolled and policed ultimately an area like this bucolic will become what I sadly see as my loved Hamptons and that is why we’ve moved here. So I just want to say there’s a very big picture here. This may be one small variance but it is a domino theory serious and I have sat in many architectural review boards in the Hamptons and they have closed their eyes one little design and now it looks the village of Southampton is Forest Hills and it’s all about money and I would just hate to see that happen. MICHAEL BURKE : How do you do my name is Michael Burke I live in Mattituck but I’m involved with the Old Towne Arts and Crafts Guild. I have a question in regard to the parking issue the town of Southold has a parking agreement going back to 2003 with Mr. Terp and that agreement is for a period of twenty years so unless the town of Southold is allowing the agreement that is in effect to be changed and I don’t see how this can proceed forward. My ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting other concern is that you know it’s been spoken about the parking lot, they wouldn’t be eliminating any parking lots but as discussed earlier there’s a series of parking lots along the property line with the Old Town Arts and Crafts and that would be eliminated if this building goes through. That are that’s being spoken about where the construction would take place presently there are people get on the busses that go to the city and everything else they offload their property their bicycles and everything else or wait there because of the rain issues and stuff like that for the bus to come through. If this building is constructed those folks are going to be way back in the back area not even knowing exactly when the bus is going to come through but that’s just another consideration I would like you to take some time to think about okay? And if I can give you this unless you may already have this is from the office of the Town Attorney back on February 7 th of 2006 that has the agreement (inaudible) Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat go ahead. PAT MOORE : I do want to have an opportunity to respond to some of these comments. I had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Kuen and other representatives of the Guild which I was hoping would address some of their questions but unfortunately they are still opposed to the application. I would point out with respect to the objections by the Guild. The Guild property has to maintain its own parking and its own access. That is what any business and they are a business whether it’s not for profit or for profit. They have benefited by the Terp’s property but it is not an absolute right and to begin with the parking is one where because it’s a community parking lot it is subject to Mr. Terp being permitted to redevelop his property. When you read the lease you will see specific language to that effect. It is not the future development of this property should it effect because of the parking issues a denial or interference with this development. It could undermine it could terminate that lease. That’s the way I read it but with no hope really here I think it can all be worked out its just understanding that this is private property. It was leased by the town but certainly with an understanding that the parking for the Terp projects would not be penalized by Mr. Terp’s willingness to make the property available for the public for the community. Also at the time that he was developing the corner property I remember from the paper a lot of controversy regarding the clock tower and all the other things that were being asked of Mr. Terp ultimately he allowed the community to put in the green space and the clock tower but at the again the expense of providing parking for his facility. He has always generously provided to the community and it has been a beneficial exchange between Mr. Terp and his development and the community. As long as it remains beneficial to both parties I don’t see any issues any problems but I do want to point out that the Guild’s points are all related to some belief that they have an absolute right to parking on the Terp property which they do not. I also want to clarify the supposed easement when they spoke to me about the fact that there was an access I was not aware of all the facts of how that came ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting about. Mr. Pinzinno who is his attorney was involved in the negotiation with the town and the access for the Guild and I’m going to ask him to provide that history because I wasn’t aware of it and I think it will give clarification to the access point that the Guild is enjoying now. Again there is no legal easement and Mr. Pinzinno will provide that information. With respect to the setbacks while the Guild is set back very possibly if the Guild were not there or they chose to sell the property for a profit and they relocated to one of the churches or anyone of the other buildings there have been some communication between the church and the Guild regarding possibly whether the Guild could purchase the church for their use I think ultimately financially it just wasn’t viable but the Guild should they get up and move to another location or just decide that their mission is to rent a space rather than own a building anybody buying that property might or might not keep the building and possibly develop up to the property line because that is the type of hamlet that is been developed in Cutchogue. By looking at the south side of the street you can see that the commercial properties there do go almost to the sidewalk again encouraging walkability of the Cutchogue. If the project to the north the condominium development is developed there will be an emphasis to have people walking from there and hopefully enjoying the Cutchogue hamlet as well so it is trying to create a hamlet that is walkable and that is what is being proposed here and that’s why I believe the Planning Board recommended it and I would hope that the Board grant the variance to allow that to occur. With respect to Mr. Simon’s points regarding the lease you’re right this is a purely a private matter between a tenant and his landlord. I will leave it up to and Mr. Pinzinno if he wants to address it but since I’m not privy to it but that I will leave it at that I don’t know anything more than that. And again going back to Mr. Burke’s points regarding the parking issue again Mr. Pinzinno will provide you a survey what the property looked like before the parking lot was created and that area behind where the Guild is now using was dirt and it was not part of the ultimate parking lot that the town was going to improve. It is at this point somewhat improved. It’s a little bit neglected with sand and so on but it is not crucial the parking that is provided throughout here. We certainly have enough parking for this project if the municipal if Mr. Terp did not allow the municipality Southold to lease the property he would have all this parking for the use of this property. Again we’re not to be penalized by Mr. Terp’s willingness to allow the rest of the community to use the parking lot and to lease it again to the town for a dollar a year. He is not making money on this lease. This is a dollar a year lease. I will have Mr. Pinzinno provide some background on that negotiation. Thank you. MR. PINZINNO : Good afternoon thank you for hearing me. My name is Mr. Pinzinno. Pinzinno, Pinzinno Manhasset New York I have been the family attorney for Mr. Terp senior, Mr. Terp junior for the family for well over twenty, thirty years so I’d just like to give you a little perspective regarding the parking lot issue. First I want to address while I don’t want to divulge any attorney client I don’t know who Mr. Simon is or who he’s representing on behalf of but as ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting Ms. Moore said it’s a landlord tenant relationship with Mr. Miles I negotiated the sale between Mr. Terp and Mr. Miles for the pharmacy a few years back and I have been in touch with Mr. Chiarrelli who represents Miles in the drug store and any of the issues that we have any landlord tenant issues are between counsel to counsel so I don’t know the apply pointed out not relevant to the hearing but just to try to chip away at some of what may be concerns to the town of what happens to the tenants I also represented through Mr. Terp a lot of the tenants that are tenants in his space the deli and Karen, the beauty parlor I also talking about a strange landlord tenant relationship not only represented the landlord but also helped the tenants out in negotiation with the majority of the leases in place mindful of the conflict of interest and everybody knew what everybody was doing that’s the nature of the tendency between landlord and tenant as Ms. Moore pointed out a dollar a year to the town. Prior to the town and I negotiated the lease through various supervisors ultimately with Mr. Horton who signed off on behalf of the town. Prior to entering into negotiations for improving the property and leasing to the town I’ll hand up and this is a survey I don’t know whether the town has it or not but I believe I was dealing with the town attorney Kieran Corcoran at that point. This is a survey guarantee the town in 2003 in connection with (away from microphone) and it clearly shows the area that the various opponents to the application in dealing a dirt parking lot. Prior to the cutoff or cut through that’s alleged is being eliminated by virtue of the our proposal there was nothing but dirt. I have the copies of all of the deeds going back to the early 1990’s and even prior there was no mention in any of the deeds of the three contiguous properties owned by the Terp family of any easement being granted. There is no easement on file based on my review of the county clerk records with regard to that. However as Mr. Terp senior related at some point in time prior to the town coming in paving over and putting the curbs in he was approached by I believe members of the Guild we’ll try to straighten that out if in fact it’s necessary and also members of the town we’d like to put a cut through for the Guild. Do you oppose do you have any opposition Mr. Terp? Mr. Terp said I don’t mind that’s fine. That is the genesis of the twelve foot curb cut. There was no curb prior to that meeting so for the right or what is perceived to be the absolute right of an adjacent owner saying I want to come on your property and by the way you can’t close this up or you can’t move this or you’re impacting on my egress I know of no such real property right. We granted that permission through the town. The town put in the curb cut and the town put in the curb prior to that as I just put up it was dirt. We have no opposition to that opening remaining in connection with our building. We if in fact it’s not shown on the plans I apologize on behalf of the architects for that we had no plan to close that up to gain anything else. In fact when we redid the parking based upon our informal meeting with the ZBA over at the annex and they said fine we would like to do something else to further to beautify the area. We would like you to put in a green space as prior to that you can see and we have pictures going back to when it was a dirt parking lot. The town required and we said fine we don’t have a problem we’re going to add green space all ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting along in order to buffer not necessary between in the hamlet area us and the Guild which is planned and agreed upon so that’s in there so with regards to the parking with regards to the egress through the cutout and with regard to whatever concerns anybody might have about the rights or lack thereof of the tenants I think all of those are apply addressed by Ms. Moore and any other questions that come up with regard to that Mr. Terp has been here since 1960. His son who is a Colonel in the Air Force in the Army upon his retirement in a few years will be coming in he owns in Southold he’s an oral surgeon he will be stepping in to the place that I believe Mr. Trentalange who is the orthodontist there has expressed interest in retiring and upon his retirement and upon Mr. Terp retiring from the Army we will still have an orthodontist and an oral surgeon in this space that’s currently there now. If any other questions that you may have obviously (inaudible) reserve the right to submit anything in writing to the Board and certainly we want to be good neighbors so it’s a question of everybody would like everything to be nice little cutesy type thing. The alternative is that building there I see no historic beauty to that building as currently there now anything there would be an improvement. I know what the towns went through when McDonalds wanted to come in to Southold into Mattituck and CVS and the big giant box stores. This is nothing like that so from an architectural standpoint or a visual standpoint I certainly think that the building where it is is certainly what’s proposed an improvement to what it is. As far as just a visual impact and then I’ll be succinct. The building where it is now is actually closer to what is proposed so people traveling east you can’t see beyond that building to see the Guild. The Guild has a thirty five foot setback that’s not our problem that it’s setback thirty five feet when our building is going to go back as far as the town in going to require with the variance. Whatever impact it has to be certainly another structure that we can put in place that may not or need the same parking that this is requiring still the height and the width of the building with the parking spaces would certainly impact the visibility of their structure heading east. I thank you for your time. If you have any questions I’ll be free to answer at this point and time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you’re aware we do have an Architectural Review Committee. It’s an advisory committee to the Planning Board and reviews commercial applications and that of course will be taking place. There is a site plan before the Planning Board and we will as I said we will be adjourning which means it’s an open application we have to wait and see what the Planning Board does and any because it will be open any written correspondence you wish to submit or anybody who couldn’t be here today who wants to do that can certainly do so and we will make sure that anything that we get in to our office counsel and the applicant has will have a copy of it. Is there anything else from the Board at this time? So a lot of the comments have been made about parking is very much within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board. That’s what kind of what they do and so they will have access to the taped transcript today. They will also have access to anything in our files that has been submitted and ?? April 7, 2016 Regular Meeting of course there will be a notice public hearing before the Planning Board. There’s work sessions and so if you have ongoing interest in this application you will be you know you can follow it up with the Planning Board where you will be able to make your own comments before that Board. Anything else we need to do at this point. Hearing no further comments or question I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing subject to SEQRA from the Planning Board. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ??