Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/05/2016 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 May 5, 2016 9:31 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES – Member GERARD GOEHRINGER – Member GEORGE HORNING – Member KENNETH SCHNEIDER – Member VICKI TOTH – Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY – Town Attorney (left the dais at 1:28 P.M.) VINCENT MESSINA – Town Counsel (Arrived 12:00 P.M.) ? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Neil Stronski and Patricia Perez # 6929 3 - 14 Southold Sunsets, LLC # 6951 14 - 28 Christopher P. Wright # 6948 28 - 30 Robert and Florence Taylor # 6944 30 - 36 James O’Hagen # 6945 36 - 47 Mary Ann Fleischman # 6950 47 - 56 Gerard and Trisha Poole # 6949 56 - 58 Harry and Irene Philippou # 6947 58 - 61 Laurie Bloom # 6954 61 - 93 Lisa Cradit # 6953 61 - 93 ? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6929 – NEIL STRONSKI and PATRICIA PEREZ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Application for Neil Stronski and Patricia Perez # 6929 this was adjourned from 3/3/2016 so I don’t need to read the Legal Notice again. We had made some requests from the applicant’s agent specifically written comments from an expert at Stony Brook on the removal of various pieces of decking and bulk heading and other structures and a survey to show the VE zone on line which we did receive and let’s see okay well we got some Trustees comments you have them don’t you? MIKE KIMACK : And you have LWRP comments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just enter your name. MIKE KIMACK : Mike Kimack for the applicant Neil Stronski and Patricia Perez. If I can have you take a look the plan basically because I can work off the one I gave you with the VE zone CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let me pull that hold on everybody’s got one. MIKE KIMACK : The best way to approach this is to refer to the recommendation that you wanted and also try to address the concerns of the Trustees and the LWRP without repeating myself because I’ve got three different approaches. To go back a little bit on this one at the last meeting you requested as a result of receiving something from the County (inaudible) that we contact Jay Tansky. That was done unfortunately Jay had to have an operation so it was late in coming. He visited the site with myself and with Tim Coffey who had done the original retaining wall construction. His letter unfortunately I just received that and just hand it out to you basically paraphrasing obviously read it for yourself primarily his concern is that the slope is now stabilized by a myriad of retaining walls as we all well know. Our proposal is to remove the top two and put a third in. What this really does is really moves back the bluff. It doesn’t change the fact that we’re still within the hundred foot line but it moves back the bluff it creates a new bluff. Jay’s concerns which are illustrated in the letter is that if the work is to be done its to be done by hand. He was concerned about the extra weight factor that was going to be relegated to that particular new retaining wall and we explained to him the process by which we were going to do that wall and his comments are as long as we follow taking the weight off and doing it all by hand the top retaining wall actually isn’t a retaining wall it’s a couple of two by six’s in the ground there’s no structural it’s the second one down it was we assumed the builder that had been there Tim Coffey had done that retaining wall originally so he knew basically how deep it was and the proposal is to take all the dirt away build that new retaining wall and then bring the dirt back in again. You will notice from this letter here Jay refers to and if I have to refer you back to the map because it’s a little confusing without that if you can look at the map ? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting and let me point it out to you this comes back in here his letter (inaudible talking to Board at the dais away from microphone) the height of the retaining wall here because we’re (away from microphone inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seaward and a landward bulk head. MIKE KIMACK : Yea basically because he was right about that. Originally the (inaudible) singularly across here basically but this is pretty high over here so we’re going to two step it down that was this comment referred to in that particular case. He thought that if we took out these stairs and the decking we had proposed that mid deck by hand that that would not be an issue however he did raise the issue which we agreed with is that once we took the deck away we may have to do some additional restructuring. The deck that deck basically isn’t a structural deck we looked underneath and it’s just basically self-carried. It doesn’t help the retaining wall at all but there may be some work there. We all agree that we’re taking out that turret that twelve foot square turret which is on the north side there. That was constructed as part of an elaborate scheme that had never received any approval nor had been completely there was supposed to be a complete cat walk for that turret right parallel to the entire bulk head across the entire piece of property. That’s why it was constructed. If you read the letter the concerns in the letter are true when we take the bulk head down we don’t know if we have to we’re going to have to stabilize that slope that’s there basically by using fabric etc. like that which we would do and we don’t know if we have to do we probably have to use some original retaining wall against the staircase once we take that cribbing away from that particular location. Those are the comments that Jay did. He also referred to that major tree that was up on the top there as potentially pushing against the lower retaining wall. I talked to my client this morning and we feel like we’d like to be able to retain that tree that we can reinforce that retaining wall and not have a problem with it etc. It’s the one down below the tree. What we have here is a series of retaining walls that had been in place a long time albeit without permits but have stabilized to the extent all the way through the years that bluff. Soils would like us to be able to do the work in a way that does not destabilize a lot of the work by hand and in that particular sense that’s what we propose to do so the upper retaining wall which replaces the two that are in place right now that’s going to be brand new and his comments basically if you do it by hand and you do it the way you say you were going to do it it’s going to be fine. The turret coming down we know we’re going to have to do some slope work in there and when we remove the decking and the stairs we’ll be stabilizing that with vegetation that’ll be going in there and plantings etc. like that. Those were Jay’s comments and those are in relation to SWCD’s concern that we don’t destabilize what is already presently there at the time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well obviously we haven’t had a chance to read the letter cause you just handed it to us. ? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I know and I apologize I got I downloaded it at two o’clock this morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to review with you Jay’s comments meaning John Bredemeyer the president of the Board of Trustees. MIKE KIMACK : And also we have the LWRP comments too some of which are CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do want to do just one thing before we do that. I want to remind the Board that was is really before us since we’re not doing bulk head setbacks anymore is MIKE KIMACK : I was going to ask you that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but you know it’s well what we have here is the code requires additions and alterations to be a hundred feet from the bluff seaward of a bluff. Okay so now we have an as built deck that’s twenty feet from the bluff where the code requires a hundred cause this has been so long I want to review the actual variances that we’re supposed to be looking at and then we have a side yard setback from an as built deck at thirteen feet where the code requires fifteen feet. Now because it was LWRP inconsistent we didn’t know what was in the VE zone or the X zone the request from LWRP was to include that on the survey which we now have. We will have to be working hand in hand with Trustees on this so I guess that’s what’s really before us but again because we had so many environmental impacts and you are proposing all this other work in the Trustees and our jurisdiction for setbacks we wanted to go further with what Soil and Water with this tech person had to say about it so you want to talk a little bit about what Trustees had to say. MIKE KIMACK : Yes John had sent a letter to you back in March 9 th basically some of his concerns and recommendations. Obviously you all have a copy of it let me address first of all you have the map showing the VE zone line and I refer you to that because it’s essential to the comments that John makes. The VE line does not come as far as that retaining wall as a matter of fact washes over that lower deck. That lower deck basically which is off the bulk head survived Sandy. It wasn’t damaged it wasn’t touched at all as did the entire retaining wall that whole structure through there. What was washed away was the wood steps going down on the bulk head that had received the damage. I present that as testimony that the VE line basically was probably an accurate portrayal of a kind of forced stance against that. That whole retaining wall structure is not subject to that kind of velocity range through there. John’s concern on number one there was a gap in the bulk head I believe what he means by the gap in the bulk head is the storage area underneath the basically it comes across then it the bulk head goes and creates a storage area and the deck sits on top of that basically but in all fairness the facts at issue here the VE line does not extend to that retaining wall nor will there be any damage nor did Sandy create any damage and Sandy is certainly was a plus one hundred year storm so if ? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting that’s any example as to the reality of the situation as opposed to the supposition of the situation I present that as information in fact although John’s comment maybe you know well presented it isn’t factually based on the fact that that particular retaining wall with that cutout for the storage area is not subject to the damage. We survived Sandy and the VE line does not come to it. I present to you that it’s not going to be something that is going to be an issue in the future that may be damaged that may cause an erosion that caused the thing to come down. That’s number one. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I make a comment on it? That may be the case but Sandy didn’t go that deep down that side. It was very unique the way Sandy attacked that side of Nassau Point and I’m just making that statement okay because I know a lot of people that were attacked on that side okay and I use that word MIKE KIMACK : That’s a good word. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : and I went out with my Boston Whaler after that and I went in very close to all of those parcels and it just didn’t go that deep for some strange reason. MIKE KIMACK : Look the next storm may be a different Sandy who knows when it’s going to come. A hundred year storms can come every one or two years. We call them one percent of the storms you know I’m very familiar with them. All I can say is that the VE line doesn’t extend to the retaining wall according to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what about the John’s comments about the structure resembling the boat house is beyond repair and to be removed? MIKE KIMACK : That’s the one we just talked we agreed with that that’s that turret. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay. MIKE KIMACK : That’s that turret. MIKE KIMACK : He’s not talking about the storage area that’s sort of sitting on the beach. MIKE KIMACK : I call it a turret because it looks like you should put a cannon on top and shoot it out every sunset. That’s the one that we propose to take down that’s the one that I commented that when we take it down we may have to do some structure on that one side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just checking because they’re not using the same language. MIKE KIMACK : We agree with number two no problem. ? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about the two hundred square foot limitation for decks and erosion prone areas? MIKE KIMACK : Well the lower deck right now is less than two hundred square feet. There’s two decks there. There’s one on top of the boat house which we propose to limit down below two hundred square feet but the lower one off the bulk head is less than two hundred square feet and that one had survived had survived Sandy and then the last was water and electric should be limited basically to a waterfront no showers and only permit irrigation etc. like that we would agree to that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we need to read that letter from MIKE KIMACK : Jay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Again let’s talk about what the impacts might be of the deck with a twenty foot setback from the bluff and the side yard setback cause that is we’ve looked at environmental stuff let’s look at the variances that we have to deal with. MIKE KIMACK : Right it’s going to be basically that existing there had been a deck and it had been permitted in that location prior and they had taken and replaced the deck. I’m not quite sure I’m trying to remember it may be a little bit larger than the original but there’s always been a deck in that location. I will point out to you if you look at the side what you see it butts out away from the house that’s an error by the surveyor it doesn’t it’s even with the house. It doesn’t it still has the same setback issue but it doesn’t come out any further than the house it comes across with it. It was just an error by the surveyor when he did that. The original deck had been permitted had been replaced without a permit probably in a somewhat different configuration but one of the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did it have a variance? MIKE KIMACK : The original one did yea the old deck had it I believe I gave you copies of that. What we’re trying to do is in a sense extend the bluff out another ten feet or so with the new retaining wall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you have to go before the Trustees or are you MIKE KIMACK : I have to go through the Trustees anyway yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they’re going to address a lot of the decks and steps and bulk heads. MIKE KIMACK : Yes they are yea and their concerns and also the storage area. ? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you’re okay with our conditioning something based on Trustees approval Trustees permit? MIKE KIMACK : Well basically CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean we’re just going to address the deck but in order to make this LWRP consistent which we have to do in order to the finding MIKE KIMACK : Is the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re going to have to do something about mitigation to environmental impacts addressing the Trustees comments and LWRP comments and so on and MIKE KIMACK : There’s not a lot of space between the deck and the top of the bluff which is defined or will be defined by the proposed new retaining wall because right now the bluff is defined by that first retaining wall which is that couple of six by six’s that’s how it could only be defined. So we’re pushing out about ten feet and trying to get it away to give a little bit more space there for the back yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright questions Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea what is the proposed setback to the deck from the proposed new retaining wall which will be the top of the bluff? MIKE KIMACK : Well the scale is one inch on twenty right there Ken I would think in looking at it basically it would be probably in the range although MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So we’re scaling it okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the notice says twenty feet. MIKE KIMACK : You know what it’s interesting I’m looking at it yea this a lot of time when I print these out this may not be the scale Ken in essence I’m looking at this take a look at the deck you see the side of the deck that says fifteen two I would suggest that if you take that measurement we’d be out probably about twenty feet to the new retaining wall. Right now MEMBER SCHNEIDER : From that corner? MIKE KIMACK : Yea right now it’s less than fifteen feet from that one corner. If you’d look at the existing dotted retaining wall that we’re going to be taking out which is now MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea the dash? ? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yes the that’s now the top of the bluff and that’s less than fifteen feet away from the deck now. That would probably be in the range of about ten or twelve feet. We’d be going out to about eighteen to twenty feet with the new one and that’s the best we can do in the back yard there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that’s what Building must of done cause they noted it in the Disapproval a twenty foot setback from top of bluff. MIKE KIMACK : I think that’s what they did. I think they went to the new proposal basically as opposed to the old one. The old existing one is less than fifteen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the side yard setback is noted on there isn’t it? MIKE KIMACK : Yea the side yard setback is noted. The thing is it’s less than if you look at the house itself if you look at the corner it’s fourteen three at one corner then it’s fourteen three at the other that’s basically the setback for the deck too. The deck is it doesn’t jet out from the side of the house. I went up there to look at it cause I didn’t remember it doing so and it’s actually flushed with the side of the house so the side yard setback is still less than fifteen as is the house but it’s flush with the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So are we looking at a thirteen foot side yard? MIKE KIMACK : You’re looking at a fourteen three side yard. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well actually fourteen It looks like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The notice called it at thirteen but this survey doesn’t say thirteen. MEMBER HORNING : Plus or minus. MIKE KIMACK : It says fourteen feet, fourteen zero to the house right there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so we’ll do fourteen plus or minus. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well what Mike just said that the deck is flush with the house. MIKE KIMACK : Yea the surveyor kicked it out about a foot and I looked at it when I was up there and I looked and I realized it wasn’t it’s flush CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It wasn’t drawn accurately. MIKE KIMACK : It was drawn inaccurately it’s flush with the house so it’s still less than the fifteen feet. It still required a variance. ? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it’s a pretty small variance. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It may be possible that the northeast corner of that deck may be closer to the property line. MIKE KIMACK : You know what it is only because George I don’t know if it’s exactly again I don’t know if it’s exactly parallel going in there but it certainly is less than fifteen it’s probably if it’s anything it might be thirteen to thirteen and a half but I doubt if it’s thirteen the line doesn’t appear to be that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We’re looking at possibly fourteen feet. MIKE KIMACK : And just to let you know that’s the tree that when you take a look at it you’ll see that tree on the north side over there that eighteen inch tree is the one that Jay Tansky related to that he thought may be destabilize the retaining wall but we can take care of that situation. The homeowner would like to be able to retain that tree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as the Trustees are okay and Soil and Water MIKE KIMACK : Well the Trustees like to save trees so I don’t think they’re going to you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well because you start messing with the roots and that’s even more destabilizing so MIKE KIMACK : True. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other questions Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well I just want to get back to this setback to the bluff so what are we looking at twenty feet or eighteen feet? MIKE KIMACK : If I had to scale it I think you’re looking at twenty based upon what they had scaled off on the Disapproval if you look at the Disapproval letter it think they said twenty feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They did. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes they do. MIKE KIMACK : And he was going off the new one that we were creating. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else from the Board on this? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : As you know that my discussion the last time with Mike was that I’m really concerned about what goes on how it stays and how it’s going to stay and I think a lot of ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting that has to do with the Trustees and all the information that you’ve received and until we actually get all that information you know I’m not confident in voting on anything. MIKE KIMACK : Well let me address that basically. I know that we have an awful lot of structure here that hadn’t been permitted. There’s several retaining walls, there’s several sets of steps, there’s a bulk head etc. like that which is not part of it. Some of it is in good condition some of it is not in good condition. That’s why when I put together when I submitted to you that’s why I submitted what we’re exactly doing because I know that when we get into this and we start to dismantle some of these things we’re going to find things that we have to repair that I wasn’t being specific about to you because there are parts of the existing retaining wall that are in good condition and there are parts that need to be repaired and re-stabilized and some of the times when we start taking stuff away we’re going to create other issues and problems. I think what we’re trying to do here is recognizing we have something that had been built out over a series of time and different levels of quality have deteriorated at different levels so we are now faced with the fact that taking away things that we are not putting it back restructuring which is there especially the staircases which are all shot anyway and when we look at the retaining walls that are existing some of them are partially leaning the wood looks good we don’t know how deep they go down but we’re fully capable basically going down there and basically making sure that everything when we leave it is going to be completely restructured and will last for the next hundred years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Trustees are going to obviously be grappling with this MIKE KIMACK : To alleviate this look I think from Soils they had look don’t destabilize it. Well it’s beginning to destabilize simply because of the deterioration of time. We’re at a point where we have owners who are willing to spend the money to be able to do what needs to be done to correct the situation and I tried to be as explicit as possible here but I left myself some wiggle room in those areas where when we get into it there may be some structural unsoundness that I didn’t see that we would have to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you need our decision before you go to Trustees? MIKE KIMACK : Yes they wouldn’t open up anything. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I don’t know how you can do it I really don’t know how you can do that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Mike I have a quick question. You have a description of proposed removal A,B,C,D right MIKE KIMACK : Yea the wood steps and landing. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Right and very descriptive what you were just speaking to about what your proposed work is going to be and there might be some unforeseen situations MIKE KIMACK : That’s why I put D in there. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so you went over this list with the builder which is Tim Coffey? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And did you also go over this list with the Mr. Jay Tansky did he see this? MIKE KIMACK : I did with Jay. Jay basically looked at all of the retaining walls basically. His major focus if you read his letter is really the upper one we’re building. He wasn’t really that concerned. We explained to him what we were doing with the stairs etc. like that but if you look at Jay’s comments he said if he was concerned if we were taking down the turret there was a slope alongside that we had to stabilize the slope which we said we would do and if we took it down there may be some additional retaining wall we had to do on that one side. He didn’t address the lower retaining wall which has the storage area. That’s not one of his comments there because he really wanted because nothing was being done with that essentially. He was looking at those things that we were going to affect in terms of how we were going to do the work and whether or not that work was going to further destabilize that’s the focus his letter and that’s actually the focus of Soils. They’re concern was hey guys it’s destabilize it’s stable now it’s in poor condition don’t destabilize it by whatever you do and Jay talked directly to that but his comments are not directed to that first retaining wall up on the bulk head which is the one in the storage area and he did look at where the tree was and he did notice it was leaning a little bit. The wood’s in great shape and that’s why he said well may be you might have to take the tree out because of the root system and my owner the owner wants to hold on to it. We can restructure that to make sure it stays. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we now have in our file everything that we asked for at the last hearing so obviously we’re going to read this letter very carefully and we MIKE KIMACK : And I apologize for not getting it to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : but I think we have what we need in order to make this LWRP consistent in order to rule on a setback for the deck in the side yard. MIKE KIMACK : Yea LWRP was concerned about having the VE line on there basically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which we now see where it is. Yes George. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : I’m a little bit confused here see I mean in your proposed you’re removing some decking and stuff going to the Notice of Disapproval all of this decking and all of the wood structures are mentioned as “as built” additions, proposed “as built” accessory construction, “as built” deck additions, everything is “as built” you submitted a letter from the Trustees giving them I guess leading to Board of Trustees permit for a portion of deck or something what did the Trustees approve what did they have a building permit to do? MIKE KIMACK : They don’t. MEMBER HORNING : They never did? MIKE KIMACK : They never did. MEMBER HORNING : Tell us about the Board of Trustees letter MIKE KIMACK : Sorry they had a variance and a building permit for the upper deck I apologize which is before you. MEMBER HORNING : and what relevance then is the Board of Trustees letter that you submitted? MIKE KIMACK : Maybe I need a jurisdictional look at this one too. I know that your jurisdiction is from the top of the bank forward. We’re trying to give you a new bank but it doesn’t change the hundred foot setback. You’re not enforcing the seventy five foot back from the bulk head. We’re not on the Sound so we don’t have the hundred foot setback from the water. Is there a jurisdiction between the top of the new top of the bank down to the bulk head? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. MIKE KIMACK : Okay under 116? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have jurisdiction for setbacks from top of the bank, top of the bluff no longer bulk heads. They’re doing all the bulk heads. MIKE KIMACK : Right so anything from the bulk head to the top of the bluff is Trustees? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. MIKE KIMACK : Okay what we’re doing is recreating a new top of the bluff with the retaining wall which is that’s what Jay Tansky focused on. That’s in his letter etc. like that. The turret CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that would be very useful to the Trustee purposes. MIKE KIMACK : So from that new bulk head down is not within your jurisdiction? ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s correct. MIKE KIMACK : So the turret is simply something we’re doing simply because I wanted to address that because that’s what John did but it’s not within your jurisdiction anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not in terms of granting variances but what we are concerned with are bluff stability because that’s part of the variance relief. MIKE KIMACK : That’s why I did this when I sent it to you. It was one of those gray areas in the code but at the same time your responsibility is further than sometimes the specific language of the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there’s no other questions I’m going to see if there’s anyone in the audience in the interest of time to move on here. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. 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 # 6951 – SOUTHOLD SUNSETS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Southold Sunsets, LLC # 6951. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s March 28, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) less ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, located at 4200 Kenney’s Rd. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. Mike would you just reenter your name into the record. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicant Sunset Holdings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we’re looking at a proposed front yard setback of 3.4 feet where the code requires 40 feet and a single side yard setback of 7.4 feet where the code requires 15 feet and the entire project is completely 100% within a coastal erosion hazard area. MIKE KIMACK : How about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about that. MIKE KIMACK : How about that. Do you have to make sure do you I know you have the survey but did you get (away from microphone inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe let me check wait let me look. I think we probably do but I have it and that means we all have it. MIKE KIMACK : Let me start by going back a little bit on this one. To clear something up the property originally was a 5.7 acre piece of property and the Building Department picked it up as being on the tax map as such. However somewhere before my clients purchased the property it had been transferred by deed as a 3.2, a .3 two acre piece of property and that’s pretty much where we are right now as a .32. We are working with the .32 the Building Department used the .57 when they did the 40 and the 15 but the deed basically which I’ve presented to you as a .32 now the discrepancy can only be as far as the tax map is concerned it can only be ameliorated in terms of the .32 cause that’s all they own. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would mean that the setback the code is thirty five feet. MIKE KIMACK : It’s a moot point whether it’s 35 or 40 or 15 or 10 but I did want to point that out that that was pointed out when they looked at it and I recognized that I asked for a copy of the deed which I’ve submitted to you basically showing that all they own is the .32. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you something the I’m going to look at Mark’s drawings again but given the elevation alright to be FEMA compliant for a two story dwelling on this property it’s a piling foundation how many feet off the ground are those piles from the beach, at the grade of the beach where is the first floor? MIKE KIMACK : The grade at the existing place is about seven to eight feet where the existing house now sits the grade on the ground. It goes up as high as ten where the proposed septic ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting system is and that’s why it is there presently. Let me take you back one step. Before I presented in the ZBA application we didn’t expect we had to because we had presented plan to the Trustees with a thirty five foot setback and with a ten foot setback based upon on the .32. I had a pre-application meeting with the Trustees. When they took a look at our proposal they said look we do not want you go anymore seaward being you already are and we don’t want you to go any further east to the dunes than you already are. Now basically we had a set of stairs going down in the front and we had this we had it thirty five feet off the property line to meet the code on both sides so we were trying to not have to deal with the variance issue. Once the Trustees gave us those requirements that they wanted us to pretty much stay within the existing disturbed area that’s why we’re back before ZBA. In order to do that in order to put the house where it is and if you look at the dotted line underneath it we are within that same disturbed area footprint. The decks basically going around are cantilevered they do not touch the dunes and the set of stairs off the front comes down in the disturbed area so that’s why I mean from a variance point of view that’s why I’m 3.2 off on one side and 7.4 off the back because the house from the Trustee’s point of view pretty much had to remain exactly where it was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood. So how high are the pilings? MIKE KIMACK : The first floor elevation is 16 feet. Let me go back to two maps. One is the erosion the hazard erosion control map which basically shows an elevation between eight and nine feet flooding in that area. However if you look at the other surveyor’s map the FEMA line is 13 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to know how high off the ground this first floor is. MIKE KIMACK : About seven to eight feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s what I thought. MIKE KIMACK : I apologize. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the pilings are seven to eight feet and then there’s a two story house on top of that. MIKE KIMACK : There’s a loft area there’s a house with that on top of it yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s two floors. MIKE KIMACK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just read this one thing. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Leslie what his drawing is showing if the piling goes up and the bottom of the first floor after the sills and the plates is seven feet. So the piling would be less. MIKE KIMACK : I’m sorry what was that Eric? MEMBER DANTES : This shows the bottom of the first floor is seven feet. From the piling then you have another foot for the sills and the plates (inaudible). MIKE KIMACK : Well the grade level at the ground right now is seven. The piling the first elevation is sixteen for the first elevation because the FEMA line is thirteen feet. We have to be a minimum of two feet above that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to read this from the LWRP letter so that you can address it. The proposed construction is located entirely within the coastal erosion hazard area and the primary dune a natural protective feature. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas. LWRP says that the existing structure was in the current location since about 1967. What’s there now is a what used to be a seasonal cottage. I think it still appears to be but it might be year round. I don’t think so but in any case it’s a small dwelling sitting kind of on the beach and you know I have great concerns about the fact that this is a 100% variance the location. It is simply not permitted to build new construction in completely within a coastal erosion hazard area. It’s one thing if you were going to jack up small existing cottage to become FEMA compliant. It’s another thing if you’re going to demolish it and build new construction completely within a coastal erosion hazard area. We had the same situation on North Sea and those of us who’ve driven by see what the consequences are so if you have something to say about that I’d love to hear it. MIKE KIMACK : I do basically I mean you have a property owner that wants enjoyment of the property. Now granted he’s in a hazard zone flood which is superseded by the thirteen foot rise of the FEMA line basically so he has to deal with both so that particular structure is in a hazard area. It has to be raised primarily anyway so it’s going to be sixteen feet up no matter what in order to be compliant with FEMA for the most part. The structure as it exists isn’t in any condition to be raised. It has to be constructed new so we have a circumstance by which we have the full potential of losing what we have completely or raising it in order to and as a matter of fact it meets the purpose of the chapter 111 because in their very own language and I’ll read it to you. The coastal erosion hazard area is to regulate in coastal areas land use and development activity so as to minimize or prevent damage or destruction to manmade properties natural (inaudible) and protect human life. Now we are in an area where we’re (inaudible) in the same footprint of the existing home raising it to a level which is required by FEMA in order to avoid having to pay very very high and expensive HUD insurance to make it safe. I do not see where we’re in conflict with chapter 111 in terms of we’re protecting the ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting dunes, we’re not moving to the dune area, we’re not moving anywhere seaward than we already are. We’re staying within the disturbed area which happens yes to be that close but we have no choice but to be in that area because in order to do that protection and then have a house that these people can use safely and avoid having that thirteen foot rise over there taken completely away. This is the situation we’re in so from a compromise point of view I believe that we do need in fact LWRP 111 because we do minimize the loss of human life. We are not moving into the dune area, we’re not moving towards the sea grasses as was required by the Trustees. As a result of meeting those requirements yes we are back to that 3.2 but it’s 3.2 now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well okay I mean that’s all this information in the record so we can evaluate it. One of the things we have to look at even though you’re within proposed within a sort of an existing area you have a very small cottage right now with those setbacks. (Inaudible) you are proposing something that’s gonna be thirty something feet in the air with the same setbacks. I know that it’s because the Trustees have rightly so told you not to create any additional disturbance of a natural regulated you know feature a dune a primary dune and so it’s very tricky because once something is demolished you know additions, repairs and so on that’s one thing but once something is demolished all bets are off in terms of setbacks and conforming and that’s a very, very, very substantial variance for these setbacks. MIKE KIMACK : Yea it’s not without some precedent on your part I mean in a sense I have represented clients where we’ve taken existing structures in flood areas not hazard areas but in flood areas where they have been nonconforming on nonconforming lots and they have not met the setbacks and they’ve been total take downs of those homes and raised in order to meet the FEMA requirements and those variances have passed. I don’t see a substantial difference here although you’re right that the variance is substantial simply because of the closeness of the property line but that’s simply because of the un ability to avoid the dune have to stay back from the dune. That would be true whether I got the existing house or the new house because if you look at the proposed on top of it on no further easterly to the dune with the new structure than I am with the old structure so I mean coming back to you with the old structure I’d still be at 3.2 if I was trying to raise that which I couldn’t. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Questions? MEMBER HORNING : I was curious you’re proposing a demolition what’s the purpose of the dumpster there and all the things inside it? It looks like someone’s remodeling the house. MIKE KIMACK : Yea I asked basically the owner. They had some clean up to do on the inside. It’s an old old place they were just cleaning it up. I wondered about that myself. I was are you guys doing demo before you please don’t ask me to do it violation variance before I can show up to ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting the Board and they just were cleaning some stuff out of the inside of the house. It’s an old old cottage. MEMBER HORNING : There’s molding wood molding I mean it seemed to be I was curious because there’s all of these things in the dumpster construction materials and yet you’re proposing to demo it. Why would somebody be MIKE KIMACK : He said they’re fixing it up for the summer use. They recognize that they weren’t going to be able to do anything anyway so they were just trying to clean it up for the summer use that’s all George cause I queried the same thing. I said guys tell me you’re not and they said no, no, no we’re just cleaning making it more livable. They have its extended families that use it I think there’s two or three of them that use it. MEMBER HORNING : I didn’t peek in the window but I saw that maybe they had cleaned the whole thing out MIKE KIMACK : Look it’s a challenging place and I just present to the Board that when you take everything into consideration their ability to have something that meets their lifestyle that doesn’t intrude on the environmental consequences that the Trustees have presented us and the fact that if we were to raise it in the existing place it would still have the same setbacks if we were able to raise the same house. Now we don’t have a we don’t have an impact greater than with the new house than we would with the old house basically. It’s not that much larger overall than you know I think it’s 2200 square feet or something like this. So we’ve tried to do everything we can to make it work. I hope I answered all of your questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you did. We don’t have comments from Trustees on this I don’t think. MIKE KIMACK : No all I was able to do this was done some time ago and I had the site visit before I expected to have to come back to ZBA because we were trying to meet and be compliant with the setbacks and then when I found out that they wanted no disturbance it was all oral but I can get that if you need it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I’d like to get some comments from the Trustees since we really sort of have concurrent jurisdiction here it would make sense for us to have that as part of our record. MIKE KIMACK : That would make sense. I’ll talk to them about getting something over to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application I think there might be. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting WILLIAM GOGGINS : Good morning William Goggins 13235 Main Rd. Mattituck New York for John Katsimandos he is a property owner at 470 Kenney’s Rd which is the property just south of the subject property and also represent Dominic Mavellia who also owns a house directly to the east. The problem with this application the first problem is the applicant bought the property July 9, 2014 according to the Assessor’s card for $750,000. They knew the condition of the cottage. They knew what they were buying and if they wanted to do an application and make the house bigger or do whatever they should of made that contract contingent upon getting this approval instead they buy and then they come here saying gee it’s a hardship because we need to make it bigger and make it safe so I think the argument is disingenuous at that point because they bought it as is recently you know if they bought it thirty years ago and now the family wanted to renovate it that would be one thing but this indicates a purchase recently so they came to it knowing what they had and now to come here and say the place is unlivable and we need a variance again it’s slightly disingenuous. As you can see and maybe a visual would be better with regard to the property but all the properties on there are about an acre in size they’re big properties. This is as Mr. Kimack said is .32 acres one third and if you look at the tax map I’ve highlighted it in yellow the applicant’s lot (inaudible away from microphone) all the properties there I mean it’s pretty small. So you have a non-standard lot and they’re seeking a variance and it’s a substantial variance based upon the application itself it states that they’re asking for twenty six percent reduction of the front yard a sixty three reduction in the elevated deck from the front line and a ninety percent reduction for the house I think that’s what it says it’s hard to read so they’re asking for substantial variances as you’ve indicated and they’re asking for the substantial variance while at the same time CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me I’m terribly sorry this happens to us all the time. Justice Court needs to come in here to arraign somebody. I’m going to make a motion to adjourn and to continue as soon as they vacate the premises. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) WILLIAM GOGGINS : William C. Goggins 13235 Main Rd. Mattituck New York for John Kastemandos and Dominic Mavellia as I was saying before the variance request wants a 26% side yard reduction a 63% front yard for the dwelling and 90% front yard for the deck. These are substantial variances that they’re requesting and at the same time they’re asking for the substantial variance yet they’re increasing the lot coverage almost by double. Currently the house is 1,388 feet and they’re seeking 2,717 square feet. The increase is about 96% of an increase in size of this house. Also they’re increasing the height which is a big concern for one of my clients. If FEMA brings it up eight feet eight to ten feet off of the ground. The house that they are proposing will almost shadow the house to the south and really impede on the view so it’s a very substantial application and you know and they’re claiming a hardship and you know a hardship is a situation where you have a right or ownership interest and circumstance is out of your control you lose that interest or in good faith you thought you had something and you don’t. They have a 1,388 foot square cottage and if they keep that cottage then there will be no hardship so the reasonable application would be if it’s approved by the Board to comply with FEMA is that they raise the existing cottage on existing footprint on the stilts and that’s it. They shouldn’t be given more than they already have cause that’s not a hardship it’s called a windfall big difference. Build a double size of the house double the value and then you’re making a lot of money and that’s not what this is about. This is about having a variance because of a hardship and a hardship here just doesn’t appear to be there. So that’s the most important part of it and so we ask that you deny the application as it exists and ask that the applicant put forth a reasonable application that is more in line with what a hardship would really be. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience or Mike would you MIKE KIMACK : Yes I would like to address Mr. Goggins concerns about the property some of which really isn’t your jurisdiction but I will I’m not quite sure if I know any people who are buying a piece of property that require or request the seller to provide a permit for what they would like to be able to do to it. I think anything that comes before the Board primarily is new people wanted to do different things with the existing homes and that’s just the way it’s going to be and it has been that way. I will point out two things that this particular piece of property the proposal does not exceed the lot coverage of 20% which doesn’t require a variance and does not exceed your 35 foot high setbacks so that falls outside the variance. As far as the visual impact is concerned originally when we were talking about the property being twenty two foot further away he had the neighbor had the same concern. I’m not quite sure the neighbor further east would have that kind of concern because he’s completely even twenty two feet further he was one lot removed. He had no blockage at all and we’re pulling it back to the existing position so in terms of the visual which is not before the Board anyway I ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting understand that but we put in a position to minimize as much as possible and impact on him. He had a concern the last time when we were twenty two feet further east that we were blockage and now he has a concern with pulling it back but basically they have the right like anybody to come in here and ask for a variance and you obviously look at it trying to minimize that variance. I’ve given you my reasons why we cannot. I will point out one other thing that my clients told me before we left their HUD insurance is now $14,000 a year and that may not mean much to you but by raising to meet the requirements it falls down to less than a $1000. That’s not only do they have a safe building but they limit their expenses dramatically from the HUD requirements and I think they’re entitled to do that. Thank you. MEMBER HORNING : Can I ask a question? Looking at the reasons for the appeal submitted by the applicant and Mr. Goggins went over that a little bit side yard relief for example how did you come up with a 26% reduction when you’re proposing a side yard of 7.4 and the code requires 15 how does that become a 26% reduction? MIKE KIMACK : No that was his calculation not mine. MEMBER HORNING : No it’s in the application I think that’s where he got it. WILLIAM GOGGINS : Exactly. MEMBER HORNING : It seems to be inaccurate. MIKE KIMACK : Did I present the wrong information? MEMBER HORNING : Percentage is wrong I think. I mean it doesn’t make sense it’s something in the high 40% I think for a side yard. MIKE KIMACK : You were working off a 15 foot right? MEMBER HORNING : Yes. MIKE KIMACK : I was working off a ten. MEMBER HORNING : You were working off a ten. MIKE KIMACK : Because my proposal was we were working off a .32 when I put this application in I was working off of ten feet and thirty five feet not forty and fifteen. MEMBER HORNING : Alright and that’s accurate? MIKE KIMACK : That’s all they own. MEMBER HORNING : Okay cause that’s confusing in itself. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is but you know unfortunately rightly or wrongly the Zoning Board’s got to look at the numbers of Disapproval (inaudible) understand we can’t take action without the enforcement officials interpretation and if the Notice is incorrect then has to be resolved there. MIKE KIMACK : We have to go back George we have to go back and correct the map but in terms of what they own they only own .32 and that falls under thirty five and ten setback. MEMBER HORNING : Right wouldn’t it be helpful to get a revised Notice of Disapproval then if the Notice of Disapproval MIKE KIMACK : They cannot. They cannot do it. MEMBER HORNING : They cannot do it? MIKE KIMACK : No not at all. That’s I presented a letter to you with an explanation to that effect. That’s why I had to come to you with a lesser lot and that’s why I made the representation. It’s a little confusing but I was stuck between as they say the rock and the hard spot on this one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see if there’s anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this please come forward and state your name. DOMINIC MAVELLIA : Dominic Mavellia. I reside at 205 North Sea Drive which is just east of this property so I’m kind of behind it further east. So the applicant at 4200 Kenney’s Rd. Southold Sunsets is requesting a major relief. I don’t need to say the setback requirements it would be redundant but what is the purpose of implementing town codes in terms of setback requirements if the applicant is then going to violate such codes in such an egregious fashion. So we have an expression in Italian right it’s aye, aye, aye I mean he’s coming CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don’t claim original jurisdiction for aye, aye, aye. DOMINIC MAVELLIA : You know the house is so it’s going to be so high in the air it’ll undoubtedly be an eyesore to the existing neighbors that have conformed to the codes. Now all up and down Kenney’s Beach the houses that front the water have been required or will be required to set the houses back off the shoreline a hundred plus feet. If the applicant is successful in his application it sets a dangerous precedent. All of the existing houses close to the shoreline will have no motivational requirement to set their houses back so there’s a few houses that are close to the shoreline that need to be renovated they’re shacks but who’s to say now if this is approved that they’re going to want to just you know renovate or raise their houses up where they are. They should be setback to conform with some of the other ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting neighbors that did that. Unfortunately Michael Kimack’s his clients have lied to him. I mean there’s been several dumpsters there. I was there they’re gutting the place out. There’s tile, there’s sheetrock and several dumpsters so I don’t know how you want to address that. It’s an (inaudible) application. Lastly by virtue of doubling the square footage of the existing house the applicant needs a larger sanitary system. If you look at the survey they’re proposing a much larger sanitary system which is close to my property line fronting the shoreline. Now it’s a much larger system I don’t even know if the Department of Health will allow it but they undoubtedly carving into the dunes at this point so what’s the difference if they put pilings in the dunes or they carve into the dunes in terms of putting this massive sanitary system. Now I’m not opposed I know the owners I’m not opposed to them renovating or knocking that house down and putting on pilings but keeping the existing square footage so that they don’t have to move the sanitary system where it is. Right now it’s close to the municipal parking lot so I think it’s fair in terms I think you even picked up on it if they increase the square footage it’s just a hardship to the existing neighbors that are conforming and have conformed to what the town is requiring so thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re welcome. Anyone else? MIKE KIMACK : I will not belabor the points I think I’ve addressed most of the issues that were raised up except one. The sanitary system the existing system does not meet code at the seven foot level it doesn’t minimum two foot allowable underneath alternative systems. The reason it is where it is whether or not there was the old or the new house that system would have to be replaced in kind like that. It’s an alternative system I think water is down maybe six or seven feet at the seven foot level so by putting it up it allows us to put the alternative system in, meet the Health Department requirements for minimum distance between the lower part of the distribution pools and that’s why it’s there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How high is the septic going to have to be raised? MIKE KIMACK : You mean the tank itself? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. MIKE KIMACK : Well it’s going from it’s going to the ten foot level basically that’s where the dune level is right there from about seven so it’s going up about two and a half to three feet but it can only be in that one location in order to meet Health Department code. So irrespective of whether it was the old building or the new building that’s where it would go that’s where it would have to go the system in order to meet Health Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here’s a thought the Town Board has the jurisdiction to authorize construction in a coastal erosion hazard zone. The Trustees have other tools at their ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting disposal. I think it’s proved given the potential impacts of this and the precedent that permitting demolition and new construction in 100% within that zone represents that we should adjourn this so that you could approach the Town Board and the Trustees and see where you get with them in terms of them authorizing new construction entirely within the CEHA and then come back to look at the variances. MIKE KIMACK : Is that allowable because I thought that your circumstances were that I could not go to the Trustees unless I had a permit from you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you can get additional comments from them. We don’t have their comments but the Town Board is the place where you should pursue the right to build within the coastal erosion hazard line. MIKE KIMACK : But I can’t go to the Town Board until I go to the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right so Trustees can make comments and then you can take that to the Town Board. They don’t have to grant anything. MIKE KIMACK : But they have to make comments within the purview of a formal hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. MIKE KIMACK : So I’ve gotta do an application which they will not accept until they have a ZBA decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can work that out. I mean I don’t think that it’s the Zoning Board’s responsibility to permit new construction a hundred percent within the coastal erosion hazard area. We have a precedent. We denied the Bombara property on North Sea and the Town Board took it up. You know the property I’m talking about. MIKE KIMACK : Even given the existing building and even giving what people would like us to do to raise it up or so it would exceed the fifty percent so you’re going to be a new construction simply by percentage calculation anyway even with the existing building so whatever we do it’s new construction whatever we do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the thought of putting on a one story something similar to what’s there on pilings so that it is not a massive in your face house sitting on a public parking lot and a beach is something that perhaps is where the consideration I mean we’re not here to take away property rights but we are here to protect the balance between the reasonable rights of property owners and the welfare of the community. That is our balancing test legally so ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I fully understand that absolutely. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I couldn’t agree with you more. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So technically do you have to go to Trustees have a hearing there and then go to the Town Board? MIKE KIMACK : Yea. All the Trustees can do is deny because they don’t have the authority for coastal erosion. I’ve got to go the Trustees I knew that from the beginning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s the trigger that then sent you before the Town Board. MIKE KIMACK : But the only trigger is your trigger to talk with them to allow me to go to the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can adjourn until you have some Trustee information. MIKE KIMACK : Well the best thing that I can do is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s nothing that we do this internally as an interdepartmental there’s nothing in the code that obligates us to say you go first you go second. We do that because it seems like the most efficient way to handle concurrent jurisdiction. MIKE KIMACK : The only thing I would require is you talking to the Trustees allowing me to move forward because it will be an application and a hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can do that. MIKE KIMACK : You certainly have all the information you need before you now from our perspective. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I think we do. I don’t know what else we would need. MIKE KIMACK : I don’t know either. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I just think it’s a matter of checking in and seeing where they land and then with Town Board wants to go with this. I mean you do have some argument about build out along that area you know if you’re looking at character of the neighborhood but I would prefer that we get it straight from the people who legislate you know that (inaudible) control the flood zone map well FEMA controls the map but they have the right to stop MIKE KIMACK : 1988 it’s just going to be amended. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s always being amended depending on the next storm. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Leslie could we get whoever the owners are of the Southold Sunsets LLC? MIKE KIMACK : To do what? MEMBER HORNING : Well to find out I mean who are the real property owners. Is it a corporation or is it MIKE KIMACK : No it’s a series of individuals who are friends families. MEMBER HORNING : Could you give us those names? MIKE KIMACK : Well one of them is Mike Gallagher. MEMBER HORNING : Well I mean in a letter or something so that we know that they’re actually people not a corporation. MIKE KIMACK : Half of the application I do are corporations for people so I mean basically that’s now a days because of the mergers and everything else like that George they always do LLC’s. MEMBER HORNING : So you’re saying this is a conglomerate of several families? MIKE KIMACK : I think there’s two or three families involved with this that have purchased it together correct and that’s one of the reasons the house requirements of the house is a little bit larger than the existing one. They have some disabled kids, disable children. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that’s going to be fun getting them up those stairs. MIKE KIMACK : Not that disabled. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I’m going to make a motion to adjourn the hearing well we can adjourn without a date or we can adjourn to August. I think if we adjourn without a date then they have to re-notice and they have to re-post and they have to you know it’s a big rigmarole. I think we should adjourn to August and then see where we land if we need to adjourn it again we’ll adjourn again for you simply to save you the money and the aggravation of having to go through you know. I’m going to adjourn to August MIKE KIMACK : I request recess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : August 4 th at 9:30 a.m. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6948 – CHRISTOPHER P. WRIGHT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Christopher P. Wright # 6948. This is a request for variance 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 additions and alterations (dormers) specifically to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet located at 2775 Bray Avenue in Laurel. Oh it’s you again. It’s the Michael show. So looking at dormers to with a front yard setback of 27 feet where the code requires 35 and the existing dwelling has a 27 foot pre- existing non-conforming front yard setback. Hold on I’m sorry the house has a 24 foot. MIKE KIMACK : I was going to make that correction Michael Kimack for the applicant who is in the audience. It should be pretty straight forward the house and the existing the dormers are two in the front (inaudible) in the back do not change the height of the ridge line at all and obviously the owner does not have the ability to take the house and move it back in order to create the dormers. The dormers are to create more space for the family on the second floor. We’re actually going to make it much more attractive to the area the dormer in the front and the back will not be seen at all. It’s fairly straight forward I’m not quite sure if I can add much more to it except it’s not going up on stilts. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh thank goodness it’s like thank you for bringing MIKE KIMACK : Water is not running underneath it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is what they all used to look like. George questions? ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Did you consider finding the average setback for the houses on that street at all? MIKE KIMACK : If you take a look at them basically if you take a look at the houses they’re pretty much all aligned with the setbacks of the existing house at the present time. MEMBER HORNING : You don’t have a figure for what the average? MIKE KIMACK : I don’t. I don’t have a figure for the average basically but essentially we were dealing with the fact that we had a situation where we had an existing structure that we were not changing the perimeter footprint on at all and that we were simply adding to the ridge line primarily in order to increase it so could I get that for you between now and the yes if you needed it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you already submitted some priors in the neighborhood with non-conforming front yard setbacks it’s in the application. MIKE KIMACK : That’s right thank you for reminding me of my good work. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You already did the work it’s in there. MEMBER HORNING : Those are priors that’s not the average setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right that’s true that’s not the average setback but there are non- conforming. MIKE KIMACK : They were non-conforming. MEMBER HORNING : The house has a Pre C.O. correct? MIKE KIMACK : Yes because I think I submitted that also. MEMBER HORNING : I mean it was built before 1957 exactly where it is now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 1947 MEMBER HORNING : And it’s on the same footprint now that it was when it was built is that correct? SOMEONE SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE INAUDIBLE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Questions? MEMBER DANTES : No I do not. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSONE WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6944 – ROBERT and FLORENCE TAYLOR CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Robert and Florence Taylor # 6944. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s February 11, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to demolish existing dwelling with deck and construct new single family dwelling with deck additions at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet and 2) less than the code required combined side yard of 25 feet located at 1010 Dean Drive (adj. to Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. Well, let me just enter into the record that the proposal is for new construction and a new deck with a single side yard setback of 4.3 feet the code requiring 10 and a combined side yard setback at 8.6 feet the code requiring 25 feet and its waterfront property on Peconic Bay. BRUCE ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicants the Taylors Robert and Florence Taylor and Dean Drive in Cutchogue and Mr. and Mrs. Taylor own a ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting waterfront property consisting of a single family dwelling with an attached deck. The existing dwelling with deck totals 1,427 square feet. There’s also an attached garage on the property by up against Dean Drive which is measures 331 square feet. It is not the subject of this application but that would describe the existing development of the property. Mr. and Mrs. Taylor propose to construct a 1,532 square foot house with attached deck and porch. The covered porch would be a 210 square feet the attached deck 126 square feet. They will build to a ridge height of 32 feet as measured from existing natural grade which is consistent with the heights of the dwellings in the neighborhood. It actually calculates at 27 feet from natural grade to the midpoint of the gable. This is a 13,662 square foot lot. It is zoned R-40. It is pre-existing non- conforming with respect to lot area and most particularly with respect to lot width in an R-40 zone. The 150 feet would be required for a lot width here we have a lot with a 40 feet and it is that constraint lot width that brings us to this Board because virtually any redevelopment of the property would necessitate individual and total side yard setbacks because the lot is only 40 feet wide. Having said all that subtracting dunes and beaches from this the overall lot area the applicants Robert and Florence Taylor would comply with the coverage restrictions as reflected in current code. It is important to note that the existing side yard setbacks for the dwelling is 3.5 feet for the house. There is an attached deck to which is raised and that is 3 feet from the side lot line and so the total existing side yard setback measures 6.5 feet so in this application we would be bringing the property into greater conformity with respect to the zoning code. Our setbacks as proposed are 4.3 feet and we proposed total side yard setback of 8.6 feet. I’m handing up an aerial photograph that will describe the immediate neighborhood helpful (away from microphone) conformity with respect to the character of the neighborhood and this particular neighborhood is comprised of small noncompliant lots similar to this this may be slightly more noncompliant with respect to lot width. They’re all waterfront homes. All of the homes here are what we consider this Beachwood Estates area or Beachwood Community is approximately nine houses five of them have been redeveloped all with zoning relief granted to them similar zoning relief and we’ve used the pattern of the redevelopment of the community as guidance as to how this property would be redeveloped. We also reached out to our neighbors throughout and I have one, two, three, four, five letters of support from the adjacent neighbors and I’ll hand it up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have three of them but maybe it’s fine it’s repeats. BRUCE ANDERSON : So we have to my knowledge the neighborhood that is consisting of people that are all supportive of this application. I also note that the (inaudible) they just left they had a prior commitment they are also supportive. We worked on the redevelopment of their property which is two doors over in a similar fashion and they are also supportive of it. So, when we talk about redeveloping this property it’s important to note that the redevelopment that’s proposed here results in a coverage increase of 105 square feet or 1.1% increase in ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting coverage of the buildable area so we’re not talking about demolishing the house and building something that is substantially larger than what we have. What we’re talking about doing here is demolishing a house and constructing a house that is a better quality, more attractive, fits into the neighborhood and therefore supported by the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it’s kind of worth noting that because almost all these lots are shoestring lots they’re long thin very narrow lots many of them have been developed along similar lines as you point out but the side yard setbacks of the property on either side of the subject property is 5.2 feet on one property and 6.8 on another so they’re all in fact it’s even closer if you go up toward the deck here that’s what’s on your survey I mean they’re all there’s almost no way to get a reasonably decent sized house on there, you’d have to have what if you didn’t do a saw tooth design Bruce if you just did a straight box what’s the maximum side yards you could get? BRUCE ANDERSON : Well you know if you stood with the premise that you would need a 24 foot wide house and you were to build it in a box and try to put it onto the house first of all it wouldn’t fit the neighborhood because you couldn’t orient it you know in a manner consistently with what’s there and you would probably because of the lot lines are ajar slightly you would wind up with house corners that would be virtually on the property line in my estimation. I mean it’s this house these are all like what we did with the Michalean residence we tried to design them they’re very customized designs to protect an increase of side lot lines setbacks where we can reasonably do so. So it wouldn’t be to redevelop the property with just a box style house would cause us my opinion greater zoning hardships than what we have and it’s important to the clients and it’s important to the neighborhood that there be a certain aesthetic upgrade to it and that’s what we’ve tried to do in this application. That’s why these houses are custom designed but they’re not really larger from a footprint standpoint they’re just designed to fit the lot as sensitive in a manner that’s sensitive to the town’s zoning laws and sensitive to the neighborhood. The minimum as you know the minimum side yard setback for a lot of this size would be 10 feet. If you were to apply 10 feet in either direction I’m sorry with a total side yard of 25 feet if you applied 10 and 15 feet you wind up with a trailer so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s the point I’m trying to make. BRUCE ANDERSON : Yea there’s no other way to do it. MEMBER HORNING : A 15 foot wide CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It took you a while for you to get there but that’s where I was going. Let me ask another question. How many feet of free board do we have this I presume is FEMA compliant although it’s in an AE zone it’s AE am I reading that right? ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : Yea it’s an AE zone CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like AE6. BRUCE ANDERSON : The first floor elevation is at 11 feet and the reason for that is to so that the septic system works. The septic system before (inaudible) consists of a septic tank and leeching galleys. That particular septic system was chosen so that we wouldn’t have to build up the lot any higher than we’re showing here. You’ll see on your survey it’s surrounded by retaining wall. You should note that that retaining wall is anywhere between 9 inches and 18 inches above existing grade so it’s almost like a curb. Everything we’ve done here is to try to keep the house prevented from being higher than it has to be. We even limited the roof height to be consistent with the roof heights of the redevelopment lots we have there. So for example if you were to go two doors down to the Mekalian residence you’ll discover roof height here is identical to what was approved for Mekalian and that’s done by design because the neighborhood the owners the neighbor they all sort of work together and that’s sort of what they’ve agreed as a reasonable standard for this lot even though the height regulation of the town would allow something higher than what is proposed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it’s 32 feet to the ridge right? BRUCE ANDERSON : That’s right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s from the natural grade. BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct and that is to the top of the ridge line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you would be about 5 feet on the foundation floor 5 feet to the first floor? BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so I think it’s 5 feet BRUCE ANDERSON : I will also add to the record the previous variances which include the Rainer property, the Mears property, the Gaylord property, the Sutter property and the Mikalian property they’re all of similar problems basically reduced lot width and they’ve been redeveloped so weighing all these factors it is the position of the applicant that there would be no impact or no significant impact to the character of the neighborhood. The property is typical to the neighborhood the dwelling to be constructed is of reasonable size 1,532 square feet. It would be set back from the water line and beach to line up with the existing neighbor’s house just so you know Mr. Taylor is here he is an engineer. He did an overlay if it is of interest to you to show how the new house would line up with the preexisting house in a nutshell the house is ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting relocated three or four feet landward from its present location the deck is and the reason for that is so that it lines up with the houses on either side which is likewise depicted on the survey before you. We submit that the benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance because the lot contains such limited lot width. We submit that the variances are not substantial in relationship to the preexisting setbacks that we have today in fact those setbacks are increased. And that the grant of the variance would not impact the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because all of the best (inaudible) and practices of modern development are incorporated into this design and they include an upgrade of the septic system so that it complies. They will include the proper drainage trolls that the town requires and all applications these days we would control the disturbance of the site by courting it off with silt fences and hay bales which are standard operating practice in this town. There would be no disturbance to any natural area on the lot and that for those reasons we would meet that standard. The hardship is not obviously self-created we have no control over the limited lot width that we’re confronted with in this application and so putting it all together it would be our contention that the benefit to the applicant if the variances were granted would outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. The benefit here would be the ability to develop the property in accordance with its intended use which is residential in a manner that’s compliant and sensitive to the neighborhood. There is no impact upon the health, safety, and the welfare of the neighborhood or the community and for those reasons it is the position of the applicant that the variances as requested should be granted. I’m here to answer any questions you may have. MEMBER HORNING : I was curious I didn’t find yet a copy of the survey with the existing house shown on it you submitted that? We have one with the new proposal on it thank you. And the house was built before code was introduced is that correct 1910 thank you. BRUCE ANDERSON : You will note the side yard setback is depicted on the existing survey showing the existing conditions at 3.5 feet and 3 feet. MEMBER HORNING : And you say you’re increasing the setback from the Peconic Bay is that right? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes 4.3 feet. MEMBER HORNING : You’re increasing it 4.3 BRUCE ANDERSON : Two 4.3 feet. So we go from 3 and 3.5 to 4.3 and 4.3 we kind of centered it on the lot is what we’ve done. MEMBER HORNING : I thought you said you were shifting it landward. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : We centered it and then we shifted it SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE BRUCE ANDERSON : Oh from the Bay we shifted it slightly landward so it lines up better with the houses on either side. MEMBER HORNING : I think you said what did you give us for a rough figure of how much. BRUCE ANDERSON : Three or four feet. MEMBER HORNING : Three or four feet okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I just want to ask about that why is that top deck not a third story (inaudible) dormer? BRUCE ANDERSON : Why is that MEMBER DANTES : You have a first story second story and then a deck and a dormer why is that not considered a third story? BRUCE ANDERSON : I believe the answer to that is that it will not have the ceiling heights that would make it that way. We’re not proposing a three story house in any event. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sorry you have to come to the microphone and state your name and address the Board. ROBERT TAYLOR : Robert Taylor 1045 Dean Drive building at 1010 Dean Drive. The existing or rather the third floor is going to have a ceiling height of around seven feet at the ridge line averaging about five and a half feet. It would be used as an attic. BRUCE ANDERSON : But it’s not a story as that term is defined. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken any questions? Eric did you have other ones? MEMBER DANTES : Is that a door up there that you can access the deck? ROBERT TAYLOR : Yes. Stairway up and then there’s a slight passage through to the doorway which gives you access to that third floor or that third deck if you will. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Okay thanks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? If no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a 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. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6945 – JAMES O’HAGEN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for James O’Hagen # 6945. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(14). The applicant is the owner requesting to establish an Accessory Bed and Breakfast accessory and incidental to the residential occupancy in this single family dwelling with four (4) bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to the B&B casual transient roomers. Location of the property 1125 Windward Rd. in Orient. RENE MURRAY : Hi good morning I’m Rene Murray James O’Hagen’s wife. I live at 1125 Windward Rd. in Orient Pt. and we are here with our application for the special exception for the Bed and Breakfast permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We received a letter I guess late yesterday and we weren’t able to reach you this is from a neighbor who raises Robert Kuehn. RENE MURRAY : Yes and his wife is here today. These are my neighbors three right here. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They raise some concerns one about clearly they’re indicating that you had in past anyway been renting your house on a transient basis that it had appeared on various websites home away from home vacation rentals whatever and of course in order to be an owner of a bed and breakfast you must be a full time occupancy of the subject property of dwelling. Tell me a little bit about that. RENE MURRAY : Absolutely. Recently I lost my job in Manhattan. My husband and I built this house nine years ago. My husband now works in commuting distance to the home so we are planning on being full time residents at 1125 Windward Rd. to manage and operate our small business so that I can still work from home and generate income as well. We are a double income family and we need the income. I would also like to say that I’ve been a professional in corporate America for over fifteen years. My goal here is to be a professional operator. There will be no funny business shall we say strictly professional and should bear no impact on any of my neighbors quality of life. We only want the best for our neighbors. We consider them to be our friends. We love our block. We love Orient Point and we want to keep it very quaint and you know no riff raff no party busses no limos just a very quiet place where people can get away and enjoy our home the same way that we enjoy our home. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let me point out what and we’ll give you a copy of this but just so that we can proceed efficiently let me raise the second point I’ll just read it and then you can respond. If the application were granted the O’Hagens would invite the public to use the limited points of access created by easements intended for the exclusive use by the Windward parcels. These easements include 1. The dirt drive serving as access to the Windward parcels. 2. A walking easement for beach access located entirely upon private property and 3. A small thirty foot wide section of beach to service the Windward parcels also located entirely upon private property. The Windward residents are responsible for the maintenance and insurance of these easements as well as having paid for the cost of their development example beach stair and remain potentially liable for their use. It’s inappropriate for applicant to commercially benefit from and therefrom and expose the Windward residents to added risk. Do you have any kind of covenant and restrictions on those easements about who can use them? RENE MURRAY : Well it’s for our community. We have an insurance policy on the stairwell for the association. We are an association and the stair rights and the beach is for us members of the association and our friends and family so MEMBER DANTES : Do you provide a copy of the deed with the covenants and restrictions we just want to read it. RENE MURRAY : I don’t have it on me I wasn’t aware that I needed to have that information. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This just came very recently. I suspect we may have something coming up. State your name please. DAVID LENO : Good morning madam chairperson, members of the Board, Mr. Duffy my name is David Leno I’m from the law firm of Rifkin Radler and 926 RXR Plaza Uniondale New York. I’m here on behalf of Robert and Sharon Kuehn as well as the other neighbors. Just I know that you were quoting off Mr. Kuehn’s letter I would like to submit copies I think you might of already received them. There’s four copies of letters that come from Mr. Kuehn who is at 990 Windward Rd. Alfred Eskander who’s at 440 Windward Rd. Joseph and Rosalie Lafause who’s a resident of 225 Windward Rd. and Mrs. Kougentakis who is the resident of 1155 Windward Rd. Also specifically I know reference was made to the covenant I do have additional copies of that covenant for review by the Board. Just to give you a little bit of background obviously the property that we’re talking about is part of a cluster where there are six houses and two undeveloped lots. Before you it’s worth noting that you do have four objection letters from four of the six homeowners with regard to this proposed application. The introduction of four additional families by virtue of a bed and breakfast would be a significant impact material and an adverse impact with regard to this small community that has been built there. Just on numbers you’re looking at a sixty percent increase in the amount of vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic that would be there in addition to the potential benefit or the potential negative effects on the current structures that are there the roadways etc. It should be noted that in Mr. Keuhn’s letter as you noted there was reference made to a Home Away listing that the applicant has made. It’s our position that this application is no more than an attempt to circumvent the newly enacted transient regulations that went into effect. This is always been portrayed as rental house. It’s been listed as a rental house and I think this is just a segway to change it into a different form of rental house. The use of this particular residential parcel for commercial purposes will unduly tax not only the adjoining neighbors well will unduly tax the adjoining neighbors and the collective use of the owners and their families who enjoy the quality of life they have in that section. Specifically with reference to the easement it’s interesting because if you look at the listing that was made it does offer access to a private beach and what have you and then if you look RENE MURRAY : We never ever, ever let any of our people that we have rented to in the past access the private beach. We do not advertise that we do not advertise that. If someone goes down there that’s on their own we do not advertise that at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay just so you’re aware that what we require here is people to address the Board. So there’s no reason why you have every opportunity to make whatever comments you wish with regard to anything else that’s brought out here but please address the Board and not each other. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting RENE MURRAY : Sure I’m sorry. DAVID LENO : Sure. I would just draw the Board’s attention to the Home Away ad that was listed to the letter that you were quoting earlier that stated private beach is 800 feet away from the house less than a minute to walk off our lovely soft pebble beach with crystal clean water. I’m not saying that they did not instruct their tenants to do that or not use that stairway but the covenants specifically says paragraph two the last line short term renters will not have use of the stair and a sign will be posted at the stairwell indicating no trespassing. This covenant was signed by the applicant and the adjoining property owners so obviously there was a specific design by the owners at that time to decide amongst themselves that they were going to limit access to the beach and limit future development or use of the these properties in a manner that might attract short term renters so I think it’s pretty clear from that and the fact that it’s you know by granting the bed and breakfast application what you’re doing in in effect is making it very difficult for the other adjoining property owners to be able to enforce this agreement if there are four additional families that the adjoining property owners receive no pecuniary benefit from and are only going to tax their current way of life there it’s going to be obviously problematic and we don’t want to have to resort to you know suing to enforce this easement to protect the beach the private beach as it exists today. It also should be noted to that on the listing that is noted there they talk about a fourteen person cap. Let me just quote directly from the listing yea the listing that they have here give me one second I apologize yes sleeps fourteen guests max allowed. Obviously a bed and breakfast would by statute would only be allowed to have ten guests is my understanding from the definition so they’re already advertising RENE MURRAY : No excuse me I have to interrupt you. This is our home CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no wait wait the applicant has applied for a four bedroom B&B. RENE MURRAY : Yes thank you. Could I please step in? This is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you have to let him finish and take some notes so that you can address whatever points you’d like. DAVID LENO : Well I’m drawing attention now the listing said there’s a fourteen person maximum. I would just like to draw the Board’s attention to the definition what a bed and breakfast is pursuant to the Town of Southold zoning code. The renting of not more than five rooms in an owner occupied dwelling for the lodging and serving of breakfast to not more than ten casual and transient roomers providing that the renting of such rooms for such purpose is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the dwelling. I understand the applicant made a statement that they would be residing there in the future however given the ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting previous history of this property the renting of the house and use as a bed and breakfast is going to be the primary use especially with the applicant’s comments about needing it for rental income as opposed to being an incidental use the bed and breakfast statute as its presented in the code is meant to be for a permanent home owner who’s trying to defray costs or avail themselves of opportunities. That just doesn’t fit here. I believe based on the history of the property based on the listing that the applicant themselves put on the internet and based on the other materials that we discussed here today this is really nothing more than a transparent attempt to go around the transient rental laws that were put into effect. Just summing up this I don’t know if the Board does make site visits. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do we have inspected the property and the neighborhood. DAVID LENO : I think it’s pretty clear from a site visit that if you introduce a commercial entity, introduce the possibility of four additional rooms that might have who knows how many people upwards of ten pursuant to the code people coming back and forth into that premises is going to have a negative impact a material negative impact on the adjoining home owners as well as their property values as well as the upkeep and the just the flavor of this community. I mean it’s really a residential cluster that’s not meant to be used for commercial purposes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : May I just get your name again sir. DAVID LENO : Sure David Leno. (spells name) Just like Jay. Rifkin, Radlers Law Firm. RENE MURRAY : Please thank you. I will be living in the house. I live there now actually so that statement is not true. We did rent our house on Home Away for many years which had no impact on any of our neighbors to my best of my knowledge. We are not allowed to rent on Home Away for any less than fourteen days by the town ordinance so on the website it says fourteen day minimum so we are following the rules however if granted our B&B we will not be having that ad on Home Away we will be joining the bed and breakfast association following every guideline and every rule by the Town to manage it properly and as our right as home owners to be able to have couples come and stay with us. The parking is not an issue because we are following the guidelines of the town that each room has a designated parking spot. You won’t see any more cars there than you would if I had a big family. I don’t have a family so it would only look like I had some friends and family visiting me and that’s about the size of it. We are here today because we don’t want to break any rules. We want to work with the Town and do everything the right way cause we are professional and this will be my source of income and I will be living in the home full time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from the Board otherwise I’ll see if there’s anyone else in the audience. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : I’m just curious looking at this covenant it’s a (inaudible) matter of domain very much but what happens does anybody know of lot 30.3 which is sandwiched in between these lots in the association is 30.3 a part of your association? You’ve listed five different parcels upland parcel, waterfront RENE MURRAY : There’s a four parcel acre across the street from us that’s MEMBER HORNING : No this one is in between if you look at the tax map. If you look at this here I’ve short of shaded this one this one listed this one this one and this one is listed 30.3 does not show up on here. Does someone live there or is it one of the vacant lots? Was there a mention of a couple of vacant lots? You can’t really tell from your survey because I don’t know the road doesn’t show up there either. RENE MURRAY : This is the farm, this is (inaudible) this might be MEMBER HORNING : That’s yours and these your adjacent neighbors and your listed on this thing as being part of the association. The coding is here upland 30.2 which is on there 30.1 which is on there, 19.124 which is on there and a waterfront parcel 30.5 and 30.6 the one that’s sandwiched in between your association is that a vacant lot or is someone is that part of your association because it’s not listed. RENE MURRAY : Oh no this is Sharon’s house this is the Keuhn’s house. 30.3 we didn’t have to send them a letter because MEMBER HORNING : I mean are they a part of the association covenants? RENE MURRAY : Yes. MEMBER HORNING : that’s what I’m asking cause they’re not listed on it. RENE MURRAY : They bought the house from Shirley and Nick. MEMBER HORNING : Where does the 30.3 show up here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on one second. DAVID LENO : For clarification the Kuehns bought their property after that association was formed and signed that’s why. MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you. Are they a part of the association now? DAVID LENO : No. MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just wanted to mention two things number one I always go sometimes two or three times to investigate a piece of property when I go out and I was in Orient looking at another parcel that will be before us at some time and I did stop down to these people’s property and I did notice the car was there and I did notice that it appeared someone was home. I did not have an appointment to go in so this young lady does live at this property and I just want you to know that prior to my going out and doing the actual inspection so I did notice that so I suspect that she does live at the property and I suspect what she’s telling us is the absolute truth. RENE MURRAY : Yes thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name please for the record. SHARON KUEHN : Sharon Kuehn and I’m at 990 Windward. We bought our beautiful home three years ago on a quiet dirt road with six homes way, way out east to get away from it all and enjoy a peaceful quite life which we’ve had. We are there every weekend and in a few year we plan to retire to Windward Rd. and to have a commercial enterprise would totally destroy it for us. Not everything that has been stated here is the truth. There are often cars that are parked at certain homes where the person is not inside the home. Thank you very much. MEMBER HORNING : I have a question for you ma’am if I may. Do you have access to this beach that’s mentioned in the Association? SHARON KUEHN : I do yes. MEMBER HORNING : You do have access. SHARON KUEHN : Yes. MEMBER HORNING : Do you pay for road maintenance? SHARON KUEHN : I do we’ve tried to maintain the road. MEMBER HORNING : Even though you’re not a part of the association? SHARON KUEHN : Correct and we’ve paid into the stairs as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One thing that go ahead. ROSALIE LAFAUCI : Hi I’m Rosalie LaFauci I’m at 225 Windward Rd. actually I’m not there yet. We have owned our property maybe eight or nine years now and we’ve just recently developed it with the intention which we haven’t gotten our certificate of occupancy yet so it’s still technically under construction. We live in Manhattan and we bought this to ultimately come ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting out here to escape the riff raff of Manhattan and have peace and quiet. I have four grandchildren from the ages of three weeks to five years of age and we live directly next door to the O’Hagens who have always have been very kind and nice to us. Our concern is of course the additional unknowns coming into the area and quite frankly you know with young babies that I want to be able to feel the freedom as we have always hoped to feel out here it’s now a concern having people that do not have a vested interest in the small community that exists on Windward Rd. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Let me just clarify something well alright and I’ll finish after that. DIMITRA KOUGENTAKIS : My name is Dimitra Kougentakis. I live CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Spell the last name please. DIMITRA KOUGENTAKIS : (Spells name) I live on the block for twenty years and this place I have no problem with James and Rene for so many years but this one I feel is going to disturb the neighbor the quiet we have. It’s a private road everybody needs to leave the city and to be in a quiet place so that’s my main concern and I told them Saturday I’m totally against it because I don’t know who’s going to come and how many people going to come and plus commercial property business next to a private road and a private houses. So that’s my main concern. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. I do want to say something. B&B’s are not considered commercial okay. The town code by review and upon granting of a special exception permit which is why we review it bed and breakfasts are permitted in residential zoned districts. It’s not a business per say. It has to be incidental to the owner occupant’s full time owner occupants principal dwelling which is why it’s usually a bedroom. No more than two people may be in a bedroom and no more than one car per bedroom is permitted. The principal resident’s has to have two parking spaces whether they use them or not there has to be two parking spaces on site on the road and one per bedroom. The applicant here would have to be in residence all the time which is very different than transient rentals where you do have no one in residency controlling who comes and goes except through a listing somewhere and is one of the reasons why the Town took action because those were becoming commercial ventures in residential zones. People weren’t paying hotel taxes, they so it’s a whole other story. Bed and breakfast however were primarily meant to be in large homes on main roads. That doesn’t mean to say that there aren’t plenty of them in this town that are not on main roads but just so you’re aware the intent was to say we could leverage some you know rental income for people who live in their home who want to entertain guests provide just breakfast and a bed and a bathroom for them and perhaps a common sitting room okay and surveillance would be continuous because the owner would be on the premises. So it’s quite different than ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting if you’re just listing this to strangers to come and go whatever without your being there to supervise. You’re bringing people into your own home and so it’s a little bit different that’s why the code does permit it in residential zones. Now we are concerned about the easements. We are concerned about the fact you know they don’t granted automatically. You have to look and see what impacts would you know take place on adjacent neighbors and if it’s a public road that’s one thing. If it’s private easement there’s slightly different considerations particularly with beach access passing by other people’s homes and so on. Do you have any thoughts on this or not yet? ATTORNEY DUFFY : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We record these sing into the microphone. We have to have these recorded and transcribed as the record of our public hearings. We need to get a copy of the deed it would appear so we can actually see who has rights of passage over that private road and if it’s restricted other to only guests of the residents that’s one thing. If there is no language referring to who may pass across that road that’s another but we will have to look into that. So I don’t know who’s going to be able to supply a copy of the deed maybe well you must all have deeds I assume. Are you going to be able to get us one? RENE MURRAY : I’ll check with my husband I think so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other questions from anybody? MEMBER DANTES : The deed might even be on file at the Assessor’s office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea probably is . MEMBER DANTES : You can probably just walk out CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right over there talk to Kevin Webster and tell him you need a deed. Alright you don’t have to talk to him he’s the head assessor just anybody there can get it for you. DAVID LENO : Madam chairperson we will also I will check with my client as to availability it might not be on a deed covenant per say it might be a separately recorded covenant but we will try to track that down and just a follow up I understand your comments with regard to bed and breakfasts being in residential areas and what have you I just think that because they’re not a permitted use they’re subject to the review by this Board and the Board reviews each case on a separate basis there’s definitely certain instances where placing a bed and breakfast in a residential area just doesn’t fit and I just wanted the record to reflect that when you have a majority of the owners that are bought into a community expecting it to be single family homes ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting and then you have also an applicant who agreed in covenants to split costs as far as liability and the road and making sure that no short term renters were allowed beach access there was a meeting of the minds between these parties that it wasn’t meant to be developed for a commercial purpose. I know it’s not considered commercial but it is a commercial venture that will bring outsiders that are not family what have you people they’re doing it on a pecuniary benefit where they’re not where they’re in a situation where there’re shared liabilities there’re shared cost and expense and it’s not fair in light of that to allow this to go forward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Only thing that I would say is they are permitted but only upon the granting of this Board through a review process in public hearing of a special exception permit to do so but they are a permitted use in residential zones. ROSALIE LAFAUCI : Hi I have one other question. I know we currently have an existing issue on going with one of the residents that are on the beach who is not complying with the new code as far as rental two weeks two week period rental and it’s difficult I guess to enforce that as he’s you know obviously disregarded the ruling on that but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this someone who is on your road or ROSALIE LAFAUCI : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : Have you talked with the Town Attorney’s office? ROSALIE LAFAUCI : I’m sorry. MEMBER DANTES : Have you discussed this with the Town Attorney’s office? ROSALIE LAFAUCI : It’s in the process of being discussed but that fact that they’ve been unable to enforce something like that how is the enforcement going to take place of Mrs. O’Hagan or Mr. O’Hagan remaining in residence if they can’t enforce the two week policy of rental at this other residence how are they to enforce an owner being present for a bed and breakfast? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there’s an annual inspection by the Building Department I mean once you establish a bed and breakfast you’re bringing the public into your home. You have to make sure that there’s life safety you know in place, that there’s an emergency egress from the second floor okay there are some things that the Building Department will look at to inspect safety of the dwelling. They have to be in habitable areas. They can’t be in a non- habitable basements for example where there’s no the code doesn’t permit sleeping. So there are some regulations with B&B’s. It’s not just a forget about these. Now with regard to the occupancy I think we basically have to believe and trust in the applicant’s honesty. I mean short of calling everybody that comes before this Board a liar we can only go by what we have in the ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting public record. That’s why we have the hearing. That’s why we allow everybody to say what they want to say so we can evaluate as much information comprehensively as we can in order to make a good decision. So with regard to the short term rental if someone is not abiding by the current law you now have more options with regard to enforcement than previously. We have a new enforcement officer. There is an on line complaint form. You go to the town’s website you can do that it goes right to the Town Attorney’s office and then they review it and see where it needs to go from there so you would be helping in fact the town attempting to create a better community environment the town has limited those rentals to two weeks or more and if someone is violating it and you’re able to provide information it would help the town to create compliance. ROSALIE LAFAUCI : Well like I said that was not my primary concern. My primary concern was the fact that they’ve been unable to prevent this to occur how can they police I mean other than just taking the word that someone will be present at all times. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we’ve had B&B’s in this town for a very long time. ROSALIE LAFAUCI : On private roads? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea some on private roads for a long, long time and we generally don’t have problems. The short term rentals are a whole other topic not appropriate for this hearing but you know they’re generally okay for the most part I mean and you should know that if something isn’t okay and we receive information about that that can be verified this Board has the right to revoke the permit through another public hearing process. We can reopen it and we can have another hearing and if the rules are not being complied with we can revoke the permit. ROSALIE LAFAUCI : I understand that but you know meaning their property and our property are side by side and it’s just we know the O’Hagans from over the years but we don’t know the people they’re going to bring into this home and I’ve got children, grandchildren and I just I personally just don’t feel comfortable having strangers. We bought this property as a private road and we’ve just almost finished developing our home when this has occurred and it’s a major concern now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we hear you. Anything else from anyone on the Board? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience? I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting in two weeks so that we may obtain additional information about the deed and during this two week period I’d like to let you know that written ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting information of any kind from anyone is acceptable because it’s still open. So if there was someone here who someone you know of who wasn’t able to be here today or upon further reflection that includes the applicant wants to submit anything else by all means you may do so to our office. The office will make copies for us. We’ll have a chance to see it. If we have additional questions we will adjourn from the Special Meeting which meets at 5 o’clock in the evening two weeks from tonight in the Annex Building. If we have questions then we will adjourn it to another public hearing so we can ask the questions because at the Special Meeting we don’t take testimony. It’s not a conversation it’s not recorded that’s the time when the Zoning Board deliberates on making decisions. This is fact finding. Public hearings are to listen and to gather information. So you’re all clear on what’s going to happen here? So I have a motion for the Board to adjourn to the Special Meeting which is on May 19 th subject to receipt of information about deeds and anything else anyone wants to submit. 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 # 6950 – MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Mary Ann Fleishcman # 6950. Applicant requests 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 located at 560 Holden ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting Ave. in Cutchogue. Just so you’re aware we have inspected the property the applicant is here. Would you please just state your name. MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : Mary Ann Fleischman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome. So you are in occupancy full time. MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : Yes I am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did look at the premises and at the moment it’s very clearly clear that there’s one bedroom and one bathroom and then kind of a sitting room with sleep sofas and then there is the problem primarily that you know we all observed about the parking up on your driveway which is quite high up on a very hilly property. So what would you like to tell us about that? MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : Well since I saw you all on Tuesday night I spent the better part of yesterday trying to get driveway people down to get an idea of what could be done. I waited actually I called a lot of people and late afternoon I had a gentleman come down and madam chairman I don’t know if you remember where you gave the idea of where one stall could be cause where I was thinking of putting three stalls would be chopping down trees and it’s too much money so then he looked at that and added that another stall on the other side of the big tree so I could get (away from microphone) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on you have to talk into the mic you can come forward but I want that when you’re speaking to speak into the microphone. MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : So if you are looking at the sheet where you can see the driveway card the two swings that’s the slot where madam chairman cause I never ever would of thought of doing it there and the tree it’s kind of like two separate photos but the tree is in the center and then to the left is where the second place slot for the driveway could be and that only means I have to move about five hydrangea bushes and one small tree. The big tree he can work around so that it’s on either side so if you turn the photo is like facing the house he did the paint work to show where it would all be mapped out so that two slots could be there so I was thrilled because I knew that when I spoke with each of you that visited that the driving was the problem the parking slots and this seems to be workable. Now here’s like my catch twenty two that I need your advisement cause I’m not sure how to proceed with this. Mr. Grattan said that he could have this complete by the beginning early part of June which is right around the corner just a couple of weeks and I was really impressed because I’m still waiting for two months for the walkway guys to come back and talk to me but anyway he said it could be done by the very beginning of June but how do I say this politely I would need advisement from you as to whether the one bedroom or two bedroom is approved so that tentatively I can go ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting forward with this because honestly if I’m not going to get approval I don’t see any reason why I should bear the expense and make two driveways. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely right of course. The Board will have to make a determination as to whether or not this should be granted and if so we can always if it’s a one bedroom you know we’ll do that subject to the submission of a survey showing three parking spaces. If it’s a two bedroom then it would be subject to a survey showing four parking spaces but it’s very, very, very tight up there and you will need a turnaround space. You’re going to need to I know you’re an expert of backing down on that driveway but the public is not going to back down that driveway it’s unsafe. So you will have to find at least three parking spaces with some space where people could swing around cause I tried when I was there and my car which is a standard you know sedan four door car I just I would of taken out the back of my car and several of your bushes to I want’ going to do that. MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : I’ve lost a lot of lights that have had to be replaced. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And some of those cute little things at the foot of your driveway so MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : Mr. Grattan did say thought is that the two additions that he’s putting in I mean he measured it so not just my little Prius can get in there but he measured it so that bigger cars can get in. If you pull in then you can turn there’s enough room to turn cause I always park way down where you can back out and then go out front ways which a lot of my clients now do that. I have my office for therapy in my house so some of them do that. May I also say is because I only got one letter of dispute and when I called a week and a half ago there were no other ones there and then yesterday I was like oh maybe I should just call so I called and found out that there was several that I have not seen so the only one I can really respond to was the one that I have which I’m also a little bit like angst because I don’t know where this man lives he didn’t put his address in at all but he was talking about the quality of life and this and that. I have I guess it was about three years ago that I thought let me see if I can make some money to augment my income. My daughter was in college and I don’t know if anyone has children that are in college but the cost are over the top and I just make so much as a social worker so it took me two years to clean out my basement to get tiles on the floor, to get everything straightened out and about a year and a half ago I finally put it on Air B&B. Now at the time didn’t know there was a regulation and so I had people and the guy was true behind orange cones on the roadway that’s where they were parking at the time and now I know there’s other alternatives for the B&B but I have never had a problem. I’ve had wonderful people down. I don’t know if it’s a stipulation that I no longer if approved for the B&B that I could not use Air B&B I like them, I like them because they screen people. I’m a single parent I live by myself when my daughter is not there and I’m honestly with all my years in human ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting behavior I don’t trust a lot of people especially people that come into my house so Air B&B has been a welcome screening process if you will so again I don’t know if that’s not allowable with the Air B&B. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think that they we can talk about that later but I think they basically have different purposes. There’s a B&B association out here there’s a couple of them they advertise it differently than short term rentals. Sometimes people are home when they’re doing the short term rentals and sometimes they’re not home but the question really before us before we get to how you can promote your B&B is the B&B itself. It seems to me given the parking situation and given the fact that you really have a sitting room down there where people are eating your continental breakfast and so on that you provide no cooking that it makes more sense to start with a one bedroom B&B where you’ll have less hassle with parking up there because they will have to park on the premises not on the street and that will mean that there will be I believe the code allows a maximum of two people per bedroom. MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : Well one of the things that I had been doing in the old days alright is I don’t perceive ever putting a wall up and breaking up that big great room to get a bedroom in there I mean at one point I thought about it but then I’m like that’s really stupid because I could barely be able to fit a queen size bed no dresser or anything else but what I had done in the past just to know for you to know is that I would never have but I spoke to a couple of you never have two separate families that don’t know each other there okay like in the even if I put a wall up I wouldn’t advertise for two bedrooms per say when the pull out bed is pulled out and the door is closed that is an area that is like their own separate bed not just a seating area and then the bedroom for the other couple so usually it’s two couples that know each other and then you know one picks the sofa and one picks the bedroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I can see how that works with transient rentals but I think in a B&B you’re required to have a bedroom and a bathroom. It could be a shared bathroom a lot of B&B’s do that but you need a bedroom so you would have to if this should be granted you would have to abide by the parking and you would have to abide by with the habitation regulations. MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : So what I’m hearing is pretty much the two bedroom would be kind of not approved? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In my opinion and you know the Board has to make a decision. First we have to decide that it’s feasible, that’s it’s not going to have adverse impacts and you can accommodate it you’ve already with your documentation proved that you are in fact a resident permanently and this is incidental to your other occupation that you live there but given the parking and given the fact that the layout is what it is to me it’s a safer and a better thing to ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting offer for more money a one bedroom B&B with a very nice private sitting room you know where you have your breakfast. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I agree with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean we’ve seen it we know what we’re talking about. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The big issue here is the parking it has to be improved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has to be improved and it certainly can be improved if you need to get three parking spaces with a turn around. I can guarantee you that someone who knows design and I can do that for you. MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : Now turn around as in front turn around? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Meaning in other words you have enough room to be able to pull in and then do that and drive out the driveway and not back down the driveway. MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : Yes and that’s what he was talking about making that so yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see if there’s anybody in the audience who wishes to address the application please come forward and state your name. We’ll get you copies of those other letters ok you’ve got them. GERARD SHULTIES : My name is Gerard Shulties I live at 45 Holden Ave. I’ve got some material that backs what I’m going to discuss with you. I have a couple of copies of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we’ll be happy to take it. GERARD SHULTIES : Regarding the application for the accessory bed and breakfast the application brings up several issues which need to be addressed. The issues include the utilization of the bed and breakfast in a neighborhood, traffic issues, zoning regulations regarding residential areas and the existing certificate of occupancy and building permit for the basement of that house. I tried to do a little research on the parking for the just a little bit of history for the parking at the house and I went to Google to see if I can get an aerial view of the parking area. Unfortunately it was the picture had all leaves and you couldn’t see the parking but what I noticed when I was on Google is that the address showed up as a home office actually for a doctor okay so what I did was I proceeded I sent an email to Zoning Board asking what the regulations were for an office and a bed and breakfast in the same residence. I got an answer back saying they didn’t they couldn’t help me and I had to go to the Building Department. Went to the Building Department did some research found some building permits that if you look at some of the evidence that I’m going to address later the building permit ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting doesn’t cover what the work that is actually existing at that house right now. With that history behind me I’d just like to state that the idea of the proposed bed and breakfast in the subject neighborhood presents a quality of life issue for residents of the neighborhood. It’s a very quiet community; there are very narrow streets where that house is located. It does and it will affect the quality of life. I know you said before I’ve heard it said that it’s not a bed and breakfast not a commercial enterprise but in my opinion a bed and breakfast belongs in a commercial environment. It’s they have it to make money there are people and going that’s my personal opinion. There’ll be an increase in traffic in the area and the street is too narrow to allow for off side on the street parking. In the past when rooms were rented out in that house I mean orange cones were put in the street to identify the house so people knew how to find it I mean that’s the type of secluded neighborhood it is. Now let me get into the town of Southold zoning code okay I got a copy of the particular articles and I went I reviewed them and it’s my opinion that the proposed bed and breakfast does not conform to the code and I’ll tell you why. First issue is the residence in question is already being used as a home professional office and I went to the website for that office and the review of the website stated that the owner was Mary Ann Fleischman. She was an LCSW/R who is a clinical social work/therapist and her website shows pictures of her office okay and if you look at the pictures on the website her office the pictures for her office are the same rooms that she intends to use for the bed and breakfast. So first issue is there are two uses for the same rooms in the house and if you look at the pictures that I that you have copies of you’ll see that the pictures show the office includes the entire lower level of the house as well as the room labeled bedroom/study an bath on the first floor plan that was submitted for the original building permit for the house. Article 218-13(C)2C states that the office space shall not exceed 25% of the area of the entire area of all floors and in no event occupy more than 500 square feet of floor area. Using the plans for the house the office area presented on her website shows that 927 square feet is being used for the office. That’s 427 square feet more than allowed by the code. Article 218-13(C)2G states that home professional offices shall in no event be deemed to include tourist homes, rooming houses or boarding houses. I think it’s be fairly aggregable that a tourist home is basically providing what a bed and breakfast provides. Article 218-13(C)6 states that not more than four off street parking spaces shall be permitted in the minimum front yard now there’s an issue here on parking not only for the residents, the bed and breakfast but the office which is based on the previous discussion it looks like the parking requirements are even more than the being addressed right now. Now let’s get on to the records in the Building Department and the review of those records raised the issue regarding whether the proper C.O.’s exist for the existing building. The home was built in 1978 on June 3, 1998 building permit number 24911 was issued for the lower level and it stated it was for construction completed in 1978 so it was an as built situation. The permit shows the scope to include the north side of the basement and a storage are to the south side the north side is what shows in a building permit is they wanted to put a ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting bedroom, bath and some storage closets for storage. South side was strictly an open storage area with just light in the ceiling. The C.O. Z-26123 was issued on 11/19/98 and indicated it was for alteration to existing one family dwelling as applied for as built. Building Department says as built mean it was built as it was there before and it should conform to the what was on the building permit which is not the case. If you inspect the photos from the website you see that the south portion was also finished at some point and time not referenced on any building permit including new windows on the south and west side which was not on the building permit nor on the plans for the house originally so the work was not addressed in any building permits or C.O.’s. Also if she does the second bedroom in the bed and breakfast it will require an egress window in the proposed bedroom so it goes to the second bedroom you need a building permit and you got to put the window in before anything could be approved. It’s my belief that the zoning code does not allow a B&B in addition to the home office in the subject residence and also since proper building permits and C.O.’s do not exist for the alterations to the house the application must be denied. If it doesn’t have the facilities required and there’s an issue with the office and the bed and breakfast use of the house. With the material I gave you I’ve attached pictures of what I took off the website I identified what they are and where they came from but it’s my opinion that considering these circumstances there’s not a basis for issuing a permit for this at this point and time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to reply? MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : Oh gosh yes please. I know you thought this would be simple. Can I get the address again because I’ve lived in that house seventeen years and I’ve never seen this man on Holden Ave. MEMBER DANTES : 45 MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : 45 where’s 45? Okay I’ll track that down on the way home. Not that I’m going to do anything okay boy Mr. Shulties you really did your homework. Let me just a few things. Traffic issues okay if you live on Holden Ave. I’m lucky there’s three cars that go past in a twenty four hour day honestly alright but not to make light of it and again one more car is not going to add to that but whatever. Doctor and therapist are equal so doctor’s offices I’ve checked this ever since I lived in Mattituck, I’ve lived in Greenport, I’ve lived in Southold and I’ve always had an office out of my apartment or house or whatever and its always been acceptable for a therapist to have a home office. Interesting point though I never even thought that there would be a conflict between having a B&B on the first floor and having my office on the second floor and it’s interesting because the website that Mr. Shulties was talking about I kind of chuckle to myself because when I first started with AirB&B and it’s really a nice place down there when the bedding is up and the flowers are there and everything I thought mmmm ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting maybe I can combine my therapeutic skills so I started advertising on my website to do intensive couple therapy for the weekend Friday afternoon until Sunday afternoon and to have intense EMDR and EMDR is a specialized type of therapy but to do that and to do it in the B&B downstairs and I forgot I never ever had anybody inquire for it and I honestly forgot that it’s on the website. I can pull that off if there really is a conflict I don’t know but seeing as it has never happened would like it to happen cause then I can make a lot of money doing that but okay Mr. Tom Uhl is the man that I bought the house from seventeen years ago. He built the house in 1978 and I bought it in like ’99 I think it was I forget the numbers but he told me because the way the house is positioned in the you who have been there in the basement it has windows on three sides like it’s you open up and you’re right there it’s not like your typical go down in the bilco to get inside but he said that the Building Department was the one who said because he had a bedroom and a bath down there that he had to get the accessory designation of the C.O. so that’s that. The narrow side of the street again I’m just like you know I have the in the winter time we’ve got the snow plow coming up and down and there still like sections on the side that he’s not getting because he would have to go up four times in order to get that (inaudible) but so I don’t know you know it’s all perception but I’m the only one that lives on the top of that hill. I’m the only one who knows where the snow plow’s going. I’m not sure where 45 Holden Ave. is I’m 560 Holden Ave. I’m the top of the hill and I don’t have any immediate neighbors. One’s in Floral Park one’s in New Jersey one’s I don’t even know where they are. So it’s not a narrow street if that’s an issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here’s what I think we’re going to wind up doing here. We now need to do two things. We need to look into the two uses. They really are two different sections of the code because a home office is a permitted use as of right where the B&B is Special Exception permit so we need to look at those two things to see if they’re compatible or excessive and how they might impact the parking yield on your property. MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : Well can I just interrupt CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One second. Second thing is we have to research the C.O. and see exactly what’s going on with the you know the certificate of occupancy. MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : You have both of them in the packed that I gave you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what we’re going to do is take a look at this thing that was submitted to us. I think you should have a copy of that too what Mr. Shulties just submitted. MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : No I don’t have a copy. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re going to make a copy for you. What I’m going to do is adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks. That gives you all time to look through everything. It gives the Board time. If we don’t have any questions we will close the hearing in two weeks MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : In two weeks I’m in Florida. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that’s okay you don’t have to there’s no testimony that happens at a Special Meeting. It’s just two weeks time to for us to read everything and decide if we have further questions. If we have further questions we will then adjourn to another public hearing so we can ask them because we don’t ask questions at a special meeting of people going to have to be present we’re deliberating this is fact finding. So you can submit written comment. MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : Well can I also just say like for the record right now my therapy practice I see clients Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and then that‘s it. I can’t boggle more than that unless it’s an emergency alright but that’s the exception and most people with a B&B are Friday, Saturday, Sunday. There is no conflict there and that’s been a fact. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know the Board has the right with Special Exception permits to place conditions on it. We could do it so that it was only it could only be operated during those particular days. There are a number of things we can work on but at the moment I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this to oh is there someone else who wanted to speak? I’m going to make a motion adjourn this to the Special Meeting which is two weeks from tonight on May 19 th and we’ll continue to talk about it then. We’ll either adjourn to another hearing or we’ll close it and make a decision. MEMBER GEOHRINGER : 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) ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting MARY ANN FLEISCHMAN : Any recommendation in terms of the do I proceed with the driveway or do I put it on hold? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I would put it on hold. I don’t want you to go through any expenses till we know what we’re doing. MARY ANN FLEISCHMA : Okay thank you. HEARING # 6949 – GERARD and TRISHA POOLE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are running behind I’m sorry to tell you we have two application before the last two application of the day and that’s because we had an arraignment here. Justice Court took over this meeting space to arraign someone so we are running behind as a result. We’ll try and move as quickly as we can but we have an application by Gerard and Trisha Poole # 6949. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s February 17, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct an addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet located at 3493 Ole Jule Lane in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent that application? Good afternoon would you please state your name for the record. JERRY POOLE : Good afternoon my name is Jerry Poole. I live at 3585 Ole Jule Lane I guess the tax number is 3493. So I’m just here to answer any questions. It’s a small CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just pull the mic up a little bit. They can’t hear you we can’t hear you. JERRY POOLE : Yea I can. It’s noted as a front yard it’s really not the front yard. It’s when you look at it it’s on a flagged lot in the middle of it it’s a small addition 90 square feet. It has the least we need to add a bedroom so it has the least impact on our house both financially and in the neighborhood and my in laws are living with me right now so it will probably save my marriage. So I appreciate my wife CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are we supposed to do with that one? JERRY POOLE : My wife’s not here and nobody knows I hope so I appreciate your consideration in the matter. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let’s just enter into the record that you are looking at a very small addition with a front yard setback of 21.5 feet where the code requires 40 feet but as you said it’s essentially going to be in your driveway. JERRY POOLE : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Near your basketball hoop as I recall. So all of the surrounding houses are rear yards essentially that are facing your house, you’re kind of landlocked with this flagged lot. We have inspected the site. Each one of us has been to the premises and according to your architect this 100 square foot size increase is only feasible in that proposed location because otherwise you’d be losing valuable light and air from windows that you would have to block up and so on. Let’s see if the Board has any questions cause this is a very straight forward application. Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : There’s a deck where you’re proposed addition is going to go what is the depth of the deck there do you know? JERRY POOLE : That deck just about five feet. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Just about five feet so it’s about the same depth as what you propose so the addition is going to take the place of where the deck is. JERRY POOLE : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have no other questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) JERRY POOLE : Can I ask one question what would that date be for the reserved? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will be meeting two weeks from today in the Annex. This is fact finding it’s May 19 th starting at 6 o’clock and we will have a draft on the agenda to deliberate. The public hearings are for fact finding and hearing from the public and they’re recorded and they become the minutes of our public record but the Special Meeting is for the Board to deliberate before the public so anyone is invited to come but just to listen. You can call the office and you will have a decision mailed to you as well you can call the next day or you can sit in. JERRY POOLE : Alright I appreciate it thank you very much. HEARING # 6947 – HARRY and IRENE PHILIPPOU CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Harry and Irene Philippou # 6947. This is a request for Variance under Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector’s March 2, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for a lot line change at less than the code required minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. located at 2300 & 2200 Rocky Point Rd in East Marion. Good afternoon Pat. PAT MOORE : Good afternoon Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant and actually representing the Vallis family which is also part of this lot line change. It is a very straight forward application in that a preexisting nonconforming lot is being made larger. The two neighbors got together and they purchased the middle parcel to be able then split and add ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting acreage to each of their respective properties. The Vallis family actually combined or is in the process through the Planning Board process combining their larger AG piece which is in this case is also a single and separate parcel two acre parcel to the front property as well. So it is a very straight forward application the little wrinkle I would ask the Board to consider is that there really this application should not of been needed and I’ll my arguments for that are that the town code defines a lot as any parcel of land not necessarily coincident with the lot or lot shown on a map record so it could be a lot created by deed which is occupied or which is to be occupied by (inaudible) building. What is the intention behind the definition of a lot is it’s a buildable lot. It is a lot that would be either single or separate or coming from a approved subdivision. When one has a nonconforming lot I think that the mistake that is being in my opinion a mistake that’s being made is that to consider the lot line additional acreage as suddenly creating a lot. That is in fact not the case. The lot is the original parcel in this case it has a house it has a C. of O. it is an existing lot therefore we’re not creating an undersized larger parcel we are merely doing a lot line change that is adding acreage to an existing lot. So I would ask the Board to give some guidance to the Building Department so that no one else has to be detoured through this process. I think you know most people should be commended and encouraged to make to eliminate nonconforming lots and add acreage to undersized lots that is not the case if you are putting people through regulatory hurdles that quite frankly should not be necessary so I would ask the Board to in this case it would be helpful for future applicants. In our case we’re already here and you know we’re done. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Reading from the Notice of Disapproval it says as a result of the proposed lot line change tax map number 31-2-7 a nonconforming 16,510 square foot lot will increase the size but remain nonconforming. PAT MOORE : That’s what I was addressing. The way they’re interpreting it is you really have to think of it in their using their theory. You have a lot that when you add land to it you have a new lot but I’m saying no that’s not in fact what you’re creating that’s what the lot line subdivision either re-subdivision or Planning Board lot line change process creates the blessing of adding extra acreage to a individual lot so that you don’t create two or an under sized buildable lot so the what I would ask is that in fact the Building Department should be looking at this and they had in the past and I don’t know when suddenly it changed but when one takes a nonconforming lot and adds acreage to it that is not creating a new lot its merely adding acreage to the existing lot and so it’s not a new you know we’re semantics I guess it’s not a lot right what? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I said a new nonconformity. PAT MOORE : A new nonconformity. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I agree with you. PAT MOORE : You’re actually you’re decreasing the nonconformity and you only have one lot which is what a lot line change is all about you’re not creating additional building lots you’re changing a property dimension and leaving it as one parcel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Planning Board of course supports this because you’re extinguishing one lot and that could of increased density and creating greater conformance of two lots so PAT MOORE : Absolutely. No we have no opposition to this. This makes sense it’s a very as I said cooperative venture between two homeowners but again it’s the extra expense and the time and the you know detracts from the ability to move through the process quickly so that’s it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Pat. Is there anyone in the audience who wished to address this application, anything from the Board? MEMBER HORNING : Quick question. You’re extinguishing this right of way to the two acre parcel you were telling us that something was going to happen with the two acre parcel? PAT MOORE : Yes if you take a look at the map it’s pretty clear when you see the do you have the map there okay MEMBER HORNING : Yes. PAT MOORE : The Vallis family owns the house that is on the north side okay the son Mr. Vallis the son is here and he owns the two acre piece behind. They are originally when we started with the two property owners we were just going to we were keeping the separate lot in the back and they were just going to relocate the right of way in right presently before the lot line change. The right of way for the back piece was over the was halfway on the new parcel that was acquired and halfway on the Philippou property so what they agreed on was we’re going to move it off as we’re not going to have a right of way anymore of the Philippou property we were going to move it over just to the Vallis piece but in the interim the Vallis’s decided that you know what we want to do other things and therefore we want to put the two properties together and that’s why the right of way no longer is an issue since it’s access is over it’s all one piece of property there’s no separate access required. MEMBER HORNING : So again what happens to the two acre parcel? PAT MOORE : It’s merged with the other piece the front piece. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : With the Vallis with the other Helen and Theodore Vallis it’s going to merge with that. PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a 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 # 6954 – LAURIE BLOOM & HEARING # 6953 LISA CRADIT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is Laurie Bloom # 6954. I’m going to turn this over to counsel for a moment. VINCENT MESSINA ATTORNEY FOR THE TOWN : Madam chairwoman and members of the Board it has come to my attention that by virtue of document notification dated May 4, 2016 the Notice of Violation dated January 21, 2016 which forms the basis for jurisdiction before this Board is hereby been rescinded. As a result there’s no jurisdiction before this Board to hear this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m not sure that you will have received a copy yet but we will certainly make sure that you do. It’s in the mail and I have a copy. Let me give you a copy of this sir and it’s in the mail also. So having no basis for appearance before this Board I’m going to move on. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting SALEM KATSH : May I address the Board on this issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’ll ask counsel. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Sir there’s no jurisdiction. There’s no controversy before the Board. There’s nothing to address so we’re not convening a hearing. SALEM KATSH : You’re asserting that the case is moot and there is a very well established exception to the mootness doctrine. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Well sir you have a remedy. If you feel that you wish to avail yourself of it please feel free to do so. We’re not going to have a hearing on it and we’re not going to take testimony on it. SALEM KATSH : Can I ask why this was not I’ve asked Mr. Duffy over and over ATTORNEY MESSINA : Sir. SALEM KATSH : Can I finish ATTORNEY MESSINA : No. SALEM KATSH : Sir this is not SALEM KATSH : I have asked Mr. Duffy over and over and over what he’s going to do about our petition, what he’s going to do about this letter of violation and now he’s waiting for until we spend all sorts of effort, all sorts of money investing in this hearing to get a resolution from the Board of Zoning Appeals and you’re giving me this letter at the eleventh hour? ATTORNEY MESSINA : Sir you have SALEM KATSH : Is this a joke? ATTORNEY MESSINA : There’s no more comment on the issue I’ll ask the Chair to call the next hearing. SALEM KATSH : No I’m sorry I’m not yielding. ATTORNEY MESSINA : No you don’t have a choice sir. You don’t have the floor the Chair does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don’t based on this in your own words the action that brought your client before this Board was the issuance of a Notice of Violation. SALEM KATSH : That’s right. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That notice has been rescinded. SALEM KATSH : By whom? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Therefore there is no standing before this Board. I’m going to move on to your next client which is Lisa Cradit which is # 6953. SALEM KATSH : Let me guess. She’s getting the same kind of letter. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Sir. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No she’s not. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Sir I’ll ask you to observe courtesy when it comes to the Chair as we will observe courtesy to you. SALEM KATSH : Well I don’t think it’s very courteous to try to upend our hearing ATTORNEY MESSINA : Please continue. SALEM KATSH : at the eleventh hour. This is crazy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a request under Article XXVI Section 280-146D SALEM KATSH : Ms. Weisman are you a party to this? CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : requesting an Interpretation of Town Code Article I want you to be able to hear what SALEM KATSH : Why can’t you make a ruling as to whether the grandfathering clause applies to my clients? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Article XXIII we are moving forward. This is Article XXIII Section 280- 121 (non-conforming uses) in relation to transient rental properties located at 560 Sound Road in Greenport New York. Now ATTORNEY MESSINA : For the applicant? Please put your name and address on the record. SALEM KATSH : You’re going to hear this one? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely. SALEM KATSH : The applicant Lisa. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want you to first state your name. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting ATTORNEY MESSINA : Your name and address sir please counsel. SALEM KATSH : My name is Salem Katsh. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Thank you. SALEM KATSH : I live at 65 Ryder Farm Lane in Orient. I am representing these clients on a basically pro bono basis. I don’t engage in short term renting and I have a home office which is of a commercial nature in my home which is in a residential district. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Mr. Katsh. Now I do want to read something into the record before we speak to you Ms. Cradit and that is from your own submission because it’s important that people in the audience understand what is actually before the Zoning Board. This is a quote from your submission dated March 24, 2016. The instant appeal raises a narrow issue of law concerning whether the Town’s new transient rental zoning ordinances that’s 280- 4 and 280-111(J) is subject to code 280-121 pertaining to the grandfathering of non-conforming uses. That is what is before this Board. Mr. Katsh stated it accurately and that is what we are here to discuss today. This is not a revisiting of the entire transient rental law. SALEM KATSH : No God no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just want to make that clear to everybody. So I would like you to go ahead and make your presentation. Ms. Cradit if you’d like to also enter your name into the record I’m sure we’ll be talking to both of you. LISA CRADIT : My name is Lisa Cradit. I reside at 560 Sound Rd. which is also known as 24 Sound Rd. Greenport. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Okay what would you like to tell us? SALEM KATSH : Well I’m at a loss to understand why one client’s been given the benefit of rescission and the other has not but I’m going to make my point and so as I had hoped to start and I apologize for losing my cool madam chairperson, members of the Board, Mr. Messina I’m here to raise this narrow question that you have quoted from our papers and certainly not to reargue the merits or wisdom or legality of the short term rental law. The only issue is whether there’s any reason to interpret 280-121 as not applicable to Ms. Cradit’s situation where she had rented on a short term basis less than fourteen days over a period of years and now is being told that she must stop and as you know the non-conforming use section of the Zoning Code provides that a person is entitled to engage in a non-conforming use after the zoning law has been changed if that person was engaged in a lawful use prior to the change. I think we can all agree on that and Ms. Cradit in fact has engaged or was engaged in a lawful use in terms of ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting renting her house on a short term basis. Here’s what we know, we know that before the new law well let me back up for a second. You correctly quoted what the narrow issue is but in order for me for my argument has to take account of some statements that have been made that the use prior to the new law was unlawful and therefore the grandfathering right does not apply so I will address that. So what we know about that is that before the new law the code had no provision prohibiting any rentals of any duration in one family homes in residential areas. We know that the practice was well known, that hundreds of short term rentals were transacted for many years without a single prosecution, summons or warning of any kind. We know that realtors were advertising short term rentals both on their windows and on the internet. You had the woman who was applying for B&B permission this morning who said that she had been doing short term rentals “for years” and that’s been the case we know from all the comments that have been made at the hearings last summer. There’s just no question that this has been a practice that’s been going on for years and as I say it can’t be this question of commercial. I mean people may not like the fact that there is this commercial activity. Granted people might not like that but there’s a million and one commercial activities including my little law firm that go on in residential areas and when you come and look at it, how can a fifteen day rental which is lawful under the new law be any less commercial then a thirteen day rental which is unlawful under the law, so commercial not commercial shouldn’t be a problem in analyzing this. We also know that in these short term rental houses like Lisa’s and she’ll explain that in a moment tens of thousands in fact collectively hundreds of thousands of dollars have been invested to upgrade them, to maintain them and whether you say that there’s some percentage they’re really bad actors and really party houses and things that none of us want the vast, vast majority of these houses are well maintained and provide tremendous economic boost to the economy here. Well the owner makes some money yea ATTORNEY MESSINA : Sir please address the Board and again we ask you to address your comments to the issue that you pose before the Board. SALEM KATSH : I am sorry. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Thank you. SALEM KATSH : Well we also know that the chief executive officer of this town Mr. Russell himself testified at a hearing on August 26, 2014 a full year before the law was passed that he was considering had been considering had talked to a managing agent about offering his house on a short term rental basis to earn some extra money. Now it just is not possible that all this activity was going on while this was an unlawful activity it’s just not possible. We know that the preamble to the law says that the concern of the Board was to halt the increase in short term rentals increase not to wipe out all them that existed, the increase and we know that Mr. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting Russell was quoted both in testimony and in the press as saying that the current number of short term rentals was about five percent. Then he said he was worried about it going to fifteen or ten or twenty percent and he said “we have to do something about it”. Well they did something about it they passed the law which we’re not here to argue about which caps the amount of short term renting to what was in place before the advent of this new law what do you want to call it the day it was passed on August 25, 2015 or when it went into effect which was on or about November 1 st. It caps it and if you read the constitutional rational for grandfathering why it’s required is a matter of due process it’s to protect the investment of these people. Now some like Ms. Cradit put a lot of money in it. They weren’t unnoticed that they were about to be sent violation notices. This is true with respect to hundreds of short term rentals. So they did something about it they capped it. It’s not going to ten percent, it’s not going to twenty percent, It’s not going any higher than it ever was on November 1 st and as these people stop offering short term rentals over time it will all these non-conforming uses will disappear which is exactly what the highest court of New York said which is exactly what other New York courts said. They said non-conforming uses are grandfathered, they’re tolerated. We don’t like them of course we don’t. We want the zoning to be conforming in all respects but they’re tolerated because of the fairness and justice and constitutional requirements that require that. Let me put it to you this way somebody that would say it was unlawful to do this before the new law would be arguing that something a new law made unlawful was unlawful before the new law making it unlawful was passed. Let me do that one again. The argument is that something a new law has made unlawful was unlawful before the new law making it unlawful was passed. Now as a matter of law and I welcome Mr. Messina and I know we have another lawyer I think on the panel a legislature can’t do that. A legislature can’t you can’t say that because short term rentals were not explicitly permitted by the zoning code like B&B’s that they were unlawful. You can’t do that. If you want to say that somebody’s going to be criminally responsible for an activity a violation of which imposes a criminal fine there has to be a real statute enacted by the legislature after due process hearings, comment, notice. Short term rentals were never the subject of any such hearing and are nowhere to be found in the code and while you may say somebody may say well we regulated B&B’s we wouldn’t of regulated B&B’s if we had intended short term rentals to be legal well I don’t know what was in the mind of the Town Board when all that was passed. The fact is there’s no law there was no law on the books and this point is reinforced when you talk about oh yea I was going to read to you the Latin for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re getting fancy on us now. SALEM KATSH : Nulla poena sine lege: No penalty without law. Goes back to Roman times and I could give not the court the Board hundreds, thousands of cases where this principal is enunciated along with a corollary. Even if the Board had passed some kind of short term rental ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting prohibition it has to be such that people have notice of what’s prohibited. Now this invisible law that some people are implicitly arguing for has no terms. What did it prohibit? What was prohibited short term rentals? What does that mean two days, a month, a year, permanent rental had no terms, had presumptions that the current law has no I don’t know. You can’t have a law that the populous can’t know what they’re not supposed to be doing and you can’t say you can’t engage in short term rentals well how about a fifteen day rental that’s allowed under the new law was that permitted under the invisible law that people are claiming? So that’s essentially my legal argument. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Sir just to be clear we have your submission from yesterday and that’s in the record too. SALEM KATSH : Oh good thank you sir. If there are any questions on the legal point I want Lisa to be able to put some humanity into this and tell her story but if there are any questions on the law and the case law oh I should mention the Clearwater case which was attached. ATTORNEY MESSINA : It’s in your submission. SALEM KATSH : In the submission. ATTORNEY MESSINA : The Board’s familiar with it. SALEM KATSH : Which is exactly the facts here. The Town Board in Clearwater passed a law thirty day minimal rental period. Some homeowners who had been engaged in short term rental before the new law brought a law suit and the court agreed with them. There was no express law. They relied on putting this provision together with this provision this cobbled together an inference that these short term rentals were previously prohibited and all that they did was pass a “clarification” of what had been unlawful and the court rejected that and it rejected that for the reason that you can’t have a penalty without a law and you can’t have a law that’s overly vague. The Town Board in a very controversial decision any of you interested you can go Google cause there’s a lot of press on it that five members of the Town Board were criticized for spending the money to take an appeal. They took an appeal and the Court of Appeals in Florida affirmed the lower court’s opinion in what’s called a per curium opinion which means that nobody is going to write an opinion in the Court of Appeals discussing the matter further that they adopted what was said by the judge in the trial court one hundred percent. Okay so I want to introduce Lisa to you. I’d still love to know why you didn’t rescind her letter but whatever. Come on up. LISA CRADIT : Happy Cinco de Mayo everyone. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting SALEM KATSH : You know I want to make one more point. My clients Lisa we’ve talked about this endlessly. We understand that this is a highly controversial topic from start to finish. We understand that people are upset about you know too much noise or upsetting what they call their quality of life. We understand that and as you said madam chairperson what’s required is a balance so we’re not here arguing that people should be allowed to do what they did before. We’re just asking that the people who did it in good faith be allowed to continue and I think that’s a proper balance and it’s the one that is the law requires. Thank you. LISA CRADIT : Madam chairperson members of the Board thank you very much for letting me speak to you today. As Mr. Katsh stated I’m here for a very specific and single purpose not to debate the STR law but to ask that the Board recognize my grandfathering rights in offering short term rentals to my home at 560 Sound Rd. I thought it would be helpful to give a little color behind my story for you. My story here really starts like a lot of people here in this town. I was coming to the North Fork for almost twenty years. I was a renter here long before I actually purchased my home in the early two thousands. It was a really big decision for me. At the time I was a single woman this was my first home and the home I wanted to buy was a fixer upper but I was pretty excited about living here. I had a passion for this place and I wanted a permanent place here. So when I found this home it really spoke to me the very moment I pulled up in the driveway. You guys may remember Mrs. Bubb she was the owner of my home and I noticed right away it needed a lot of TLC but I was very passionate about the property but buying the house really was not easy and it wasn’t clear. There were a lot of competing offers for the home at the time and after many months of offers falling through Mrs. Bubb actually called my realtor and said to my realtor why don’t you call that nice young lady and tell her to put an offer in on my house. So I really had developed a fondness for her and for the house throughout the process so I made the offer she accepted my offer and it’s been really a love affair with 560 Sound Rd. ever since. I jumped in with gusto and for years, years I’ve put blood sweat and tears into updating my house. I’m a big DIY’er and I really love the process. I updated the appearance if any of you have seen my house. I’ve improved the value as a result not only for my home but for my community and this labor of love is a very personal point of pride for me. Right now at this time my job does not permit me to live her full time. My husband and I are here almost every single weekend year round and we will retire here. We want to remain close to our family who’ve been business and homeowners in Southold for nearly half a century. The decision that I came to rent my house came six years after I purchased it. I didn’t buy this with the express intent of creating a money making enterprise. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Just not to interrupt but just to be clear when exactly did you purchase it what year? LISA CRADIT : I purchased my home I believe it was 2006. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting ATTORNEY MESSINA : Thank you. Please continue I’m sorry. LISA CRADIT : Sure no worries. I actually started renting my home out of necessity. I’d been out of a job for almost a year at the time. So I began publicly advertising my property in early 2014 which is almost two years actually before the new STR law was passed but because of the positive experience that I have had and continue to have with my guests I continued to offer the property to qualified people and these are people that I screen very carefully. They are not people that I am not familiar with. I have their driver’s licenses. They sign written contracts. They sign agreements to follow very strict rules for the use of my home and for their activity and candidly those rules and requirements are far stricter from what a community requires and even from what the law provides. I have made a lot of life choices based on reliance on renting this property. Choices that include the place that I live, the kind of job that I can accept and even the income that’s required to cover my expenses. As Salem mentioned to you all earlier personally I’ve invested tens of thousands of dollars over the years to update the usability and value of this home. I spent significant money on it every single month to maintain its appearance both inside and outside and this goes well beyond the financial requirements of typical home ownership. Renters if you’re not familiar require a pristine home something that is new with modern conveniences and that costs money and that costs time. To cover this sort of significant investment that I’ve made I need to continue to rent my home for years to come and I would never have gone through this greater length and expense if I had known that I could not rent my home and that my investment could be wiped out as a result of this law but I want to be really clear I’m not getting rich from renting. Rental income for me at best covers some of my expenses. It never did and it never will go far enough to cover everything like taxes and mortgage and the rest of it but now with the new short term rental restrictions nothing it covers none of that. Up until the new law was passed I saw a steady rise in demand for my home as our area continued to gain national recognition as a desired getaway but since the new STR law has taken effect my inquiries have dropped off by more than seventy five percent and it should come as no surprise to anyone here that that’s the case because there’s really no market for short term rental for fourteen nights. In my case ninety nine percent of my rentals prior to the new law were for seven nights or less with the majority of that being weekend interest only and as a result I believe that my investment will become a major failure here as a result of a severe and sudden reduction in short term housing that will surely lead the Southold losing its status as a desirable and revitalized destination not just for vacationers but for retirees like I hope to become myself. Economic losses that you’ve heard from me here they go well beyond me. A lot of other people rely on me for their income that comes through this rental. It includes my housekeeper, my landscaper, my contractors all my service providers all of these are local small businesses that have seen a significant reduction in their income as a result of this loss. The income inflexible use afforded by renting on a short term basis has ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting allowed me to also do other things. For example donating a stay in my home as part of charity auction for a cat shelter where I volunteer. (Ms. Cradit begins to cry) This is my big passion this donation has really become one of the biggest draws for this auction. Every year and it generates significant income for the donations that come from this and now my animal shelter is going to have to suffer too (continues to cry). You’re heartless. The most upsetting loss actually of all is the one that’s imposed on my eighty year old widowed father. He’s a proud navy veteran and he relies on me to supplement his fixed government income (crying) because alone it doesn’t come close to provide the support that he needs for health care and other basic necessities. Sorry this is very emotional for me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s alright take your time and take a deep breathe. LISA CRADIT : When I started to rent my home I had no reason to question the validity of what I was doing because it was just a simple, common and wide spread practice in this town. I had every right to rely on a legal status quo at that time putting the home I bought and that I loved and that I maintain to lawful use because this is private property and there was no law saying that I could not offer rentals but I really want to be clear and I want to repeat to you today I’ve given you my emotional story but I’m not here to debate the merits of the short term rental law. Since the law took effect I have strictly complied with its rules. You can see it on my website. It clearly requires a minimum fourteen night contract for every single rental. Every single rental has a fourteen night contract (inaudible). I heard earlier today about enforcement and how are you going to enforce this. Enforcement is simple. Ask me about my renter I’ll give you a copy of the fourteen day contract simple done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could I ask you a couple of questions? LISA CRADIT : Please. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many year have you been renting your house on a short term basis? LISA CRADIT : Since early 2014. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2014 LISA CRADIT : Yes I think I first began advertising in February. My first rental I believe was in April. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At any point have you paid Suffolk County hotel taxes. LISA CRADIT : Yes. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay you have. Could you produce for us a filing? LISA CRADIT : I can. The next tax grouping is due in June. I was made aware that we were required to pay these taxes with the Suffolk Times article that came out recently and I’m currently have contacted the local county and made arrangements to pay the 2014 and 2015 taxes. ATTORNEY MESSINA : To be clear you haven’t paid them yet? SALEM KATSH : I would think that taxes ATTORNEY MESSINA : Let her answer her first please. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let her answer then we’ll happily hear what you have to say. SALEM KATSH : I would like this tax issues to be confidential. ATTORNEY MESSINA : We’re just asking if she paid them. LISA CRADIT : My taxes have been filed. SALEM KATSH : If she paid them or not paid them. ATTORNEY MESSINA : If she paid them there’s a filing that anyone is entitled SALEM KATSH : It doesn’t make her rental ATTORNEY MESSINA : Please let me finish. SALEM KATSH : It doesn’t make her rental legal or illegal does it? ATTORNEY MESSINA : Sir SALEM KATSH : I mean I don’t think it’s relevant but go ahead answer the question. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Thank you sir. So have you actually filed them or you’re about to file? LISA CRADIT : The county has been notified. I have provided them all the documentation. I provided the application. I have my number. ATTORNEY MESSINA : When did you do that? LISA CRADIT : I have a copy of actually the filing for my pin if you would like that. ATTORNEY MESSINA : That’s you’re going to redact you’re going to consult with your attorney. All I’m asking is the date. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting SALEM KATSH : You have every intention of paying the tax? LISA CRADIT : Well of course. ATTORNEY MESSINA : That’s not what I asked. My question was have you paid the tax and if you have not, when did you do the filing. That’s all. LISA CRADIT : The filing paperwork went in I believe in late March or early April. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Okay thank you that’s all and if you want to submit something counsel you can if you don’t want your client to she doesn’t that’s fine. SALEM KATSH : I don’t see the point of it. ATTORNEY MESSINA : That’s up to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I just had a few questions. When you rent out your house do you rent the whole house? LISA CRADIT : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That includes the upstairs the downstairs, the basement the whole house? LISA CRADIT : Yes the whole house is available. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright and do you have a bed in the basement? LISA CRADIT : I have a bed in my basement. There was a bed in my basement when I purchased my home. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. That’s it for me. LISA CRADIT : Great just to wrap up really I with upmost respect I actually ask the Board just to confirm that the zoning code specifically 280-121 applies to my short term rental use which predated the amendment by almost two years and please protect the integrity of the zoning code. Uphold the grandfathering provision corps all around the nation view this as a constitutional requirement. Really grandfathering it’s not just required under the law it’s really the fair and the just thing to do. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. I actually like to call cause it’s relevant the director of Code Enforcement to the podium. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting WILLIAM DUFFY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ATTORNEY : William Duffy Town Attorney for the town of Southampton. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Southold now. ATTORNEY DUFFY : Town of Southold wrong town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re here now Bill. ATTORNEY MESSINA : You traded up Mr. Duffy you traded up. Do you have anything you’d like to say for the record sir? ATTORNEY DUFFY : I’m in charge of code enforcement. Just to the point of the improvements to the house I would like to submit photos taken by code enforcement showing the basement converted to habitable space and also the online posting showing that the basement is for rent. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Okay and when was those photos taken sir was it last week within the last week? ATTORNEY DUFFY : The last couple of months. Is there any other questions? I have nothing else to provide the Board. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. At this time I’d like to see if there’s anyone in the audience unless you want to speak Mr. Katsh. SALEM KATSH : Yes I just want to comment that the whether there’s been a code violation or not would not go to whether the short term rentals were legal or not so I just want to make that point. There are consequences for violating the code? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. SALEM KATSH : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One at a time. Please use either podium and come forward and state your name for the record and whoever gets there first gets to speak first. It looks like it’s a race. You just duke it out. EILEEN POWERS : Good afternoon my name is Eileen Powers 456 Griffin Ave. Riverhead 11901 but as many of you know I also reside within the Town of Southold. I represent and I speak to you today on behalf of Lori Hollender and Scott MacIntyre who own and live in their home at 22 Sound Rd. which is directly next door to the subject property here and for the record I want to ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting reiterate that Sound Rd. in Greenport is a community of relatively small single family homes on quarter acre lots. The decision you make today on this will undoubtedly affect not just all the home owners on Sound Rd. but potentially in every other community in this town. Ms. Cradit’s application appears to be a request for review of the interpretation of the town’s code enforcement unit which found that she was illegally using her property for transient rentals. She seeks a determination from this Board that she is a preexisting use on the property that she should be allowed to continue under town code 280. We do not agree and we ask that you deny her application in its entirety. First, it is simply not enough that Ms. Cradit had used her property as a short term rental prior to the recent zoning changes. It’s long settled NYS law that the owner must establish that the alleged preexisting use was legal prior to the enactment of the zoning restriction which purportedly rendered it non-conforming. Your own code relied upon by Ms. Cradit says that the use must be legally existing at the time of the code change. A use that’s initiated in violation of the zoning ordinance cannot be granted protection as a preexisting nonconforming use. The subject property here has a C.O. for a single family home and nothing more. Use of a home as a motel has never been a permitted use in R-40. Renting a home to groups of up to eight people for one night or weekends was not a permitted use under the town code and with respect to Mr. Katsh’s statements about his law office that have to review your code but most codes would determine whether that is an appropriate use in a single family home in a residential district. So we might want to look into that. Second, even if do you have a copy in your file of the C.O.’s you take judicial notice of that? ATTORNEY MESSINA : We take judicial notice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we do. EILEEN POWERS : Okay cause some Zoning Boards do not do that so I just want to make clear cause I have copies if you need them but it’s clearly a single family home and the town code which I’m sure you also take judicial notice of defines single families and family units within the code. But even if Ms. Cradit could establish that use of a single family home is a motel which is exactly what this is was a legal use when she started it two years ago and again she cannot do that but if she could a preexisting nonconforming use is limited to what the applicant proves to the Board existed at the time of the zone change. The use cannot be intensified, it cannot be enlarged and it cannot be expanded in any way. Now I reviewed the file and I don’t know if anybody made changes in it but the submissions by Mr. Katsh from what I saw in the file offered proof only of a single weekend short term rental in July of 2015 so even if you were to find there was a preexisting nonconforming use as a short term rental which you decided is somehow legal under the code her use of short term one night or weekend rentals going forward would be limited to one weekend per year because that’s what she’s established for the record here in front of the Zoning Board. So even if you were to find that it was legal that’s ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting the extent of it. The purpose as Mr. Katsh correctly pointed out is to eliminate these nonconforming uses and so you don’t allow them to expand them, enlarge them or intensify them and that’s what she would be doing if she used it for more than one weekend because that’s what was established here before you. And finally I want to point out to the extent that Ms. Cradit would have been entitled to a preexisting nonconforming use and again I don’t think she is I submit it’s clear and she just reiterated on the record for you that she abandoned the nonconforming use in favor of the new zoning provision. I would direct your attention to your recent advertisement or two recent advertisements Ms. Cradit placed on with respect to the subject property SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING : One is from April of 2016 and one is February 2016. EILEEN POWERS : And in both of those advertisements she indicates that she is renting the property from minimum term of two weeks in conformance with the new transient rental definition contained in the Southold town code section 280-121 E which is part of what they are relying on is clear that a nonconforming use shall not be reestablished if that use has been changed to a conforming use. Ms. Cradit made it clear here on the record that she in fact changed the her property to a conforming use after the town changed the law and so to the extent that she had a nonconforming use it’s extinguished and this Board has no power to reinstate it for her. I’m happy to answer any questions but I appreciate your time. Let me just say something else so too about my clients so that we have that on the record. Laurie and Scott have purchased their home on Sound Rd. in Greenport to live in full time in their retirement. They selected a quiet neighborhood away from the downtown commercial district to have an absentee landlord buy the home next door and turn it into a motel and make no mistake this is a full out commercial enterprise being operated as a motel next to my client’s single family home on Sound Rd. To have somebody do that is just way more than unfair. They took their quiet residential neighborhood and put a motel right next door. ATTORNEY MESSINA : You’re saying then in sum your clients bought their house in reliance on the Zoning Board is that correct? EILEEN POWERS : Absolutely. My client and every other single family homeowner in this town has the right to also have the right to rely on the zoning when they purchase their properties and I would ask that this Board think about them when you exercise your judgment in determining this application and we respectfully ask that you deny this application. Thank you. SALEM KATSH : May I ATTORNEY MESSINA : Sir you’ll get your chance at the end to rebut. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting SALEM KATSH : It’s just that the ATTORNEY KATSH : You’ll get your chance at the end. SALEM KATSH : The abandonment was not voluntary. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. You have to state your name. LORI HOLLENDER : Lori Hollender and I’m the house next door to Lisa Cradit’s house. There are large groups of people on the weekend and they and no matter how much Lisa tries to ask them to be quiet these are large groups of people that are coming you know for weddings, for bachelorette parties and the room they hang out in the sunroom that she talks about in her ad is literally thirty feet from our bedroom windows and these are small plots of land and also to say that you know somebody else spends lots of money their life savings we’ve spent our life’s savings fixing up and purchasing our house to make it look beautiful and the reason all these short term rentals are now coming here is because the residents care for their houses and do everything that the owners are saying that they did you know we have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lori just up the mic just a little bit towards. LORI HOLLENDER : Oh up to what point did you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we got it but it’s hard these mics are connected to our recording equipment so LORI HOLLENDER : Okay we work really hard keeping our house looking really wonderful and gardening we’ve been gardening for twenty years. We fix our house we put our life savings into this house so that we could have a quiet place to retire and to have to be subject to every weekend loud groups of people thirty feet from our bedroom window it’s horrible. It’s horrible and I don’t know what else to say. I just wanted to add that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. SCOTT VAYER : My name is Scott Vayer, Marshall Scott Vayer. I also live at Sound Rd. 58 Sound Rd. I’m a little further down the street from the house of the applicant. Do you need this to be louder. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Spell your name. SCOTT VAYER : (SPELLS NAME) and so I’m a little bit further down the road a few houses from the beach but being there the crowds from these party houses all pass my house in fact I was out cleaning up broken rum bottles. I don’t know it’s from them it could be the high school kids but I you know we try to be vigilant in keeping the street clean sweeping up the broken glass, ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting taking care of the beach that gets covered with litter so we’re trying you know to the extent we can to limit the use and the volume at the beach to those people that are in the neighborhood or in the town. Now I want to thank counselor Powers for her very good presentation and I was going to join in that comment about the statute and the code so I just want to concur in everything she said because I think she accurately presented the situation with respect to the statute and with respect to the basis for granting a use variance but I would like to supplement it just a little bit. One of the things what I’d like to do is give you the citation it was section 280- 121 nonconforming uses of the town code that I think she was alluding to and it was section E that said that although there is grandfathering permitted in certain circumstances it is not permitted where it shall not be reestablished if such use has been changed or replaced by a conforming use. Nothing about abandonment just changed or replaced by a conforming use and I also went on to Google actually cause I don’t look at VRBO or these other sites but on Google it’s catched in fact anybody in the public can go on run a search on that house and find that ad. I found the ad from April 7 with the same language which although it’s not (inaudible) because I haven’t submitted it and although I could probably give you a (inaudible) of the document and you could see it but you can find it yourself and the applicant is as much as admitted it. She has been conforming for the past several months so that use is no longer in existence as a short term rental use and under the statute 280-121 it cannot be re- implemented as a matter of grandfathering a variance a use variance. In addition as if there were not enough the code in order to be entirely clear states in the definitional portion that there’s a definition of nonconforming use. It says a use I’m quoting a use whether and this is from the town code definitions don’t actually have that section but it’s in e-code 360.com it says “ a use whether of a building sign or track of land or combination of these legally existing on the effective date of the chapter which does not conform to the present use regulations of the district in which it is located but which is continuously maintained after the effective date of these regulations”. So again it must have been continuously maintained which this was not. There are many other basis for denying but I think that the straightforward technical basis in the law it is something we should consider. In addition I would just like to point out that you know even without grandfathering someone could apply for a variance conceivably. It’s possible. There is a lot of writing about this I want to keep it very short though. There’s a NYS bar association piece on line as well called information real estate practitioners should know about zoning and land use as informed by recent case law. It’s actually written by Adam Weckstein and others and it’s on the NYS bar association website and that points out that while the area I’m quoting again “while the area variance standard is generally a flexible one allowing the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant the variance when the benefit to the applicant by the grant of the variance outweighs the detriment the health safety and welfare of the community by such grant taking into account five statutory factors for balancing such considerations the use variance standard is very difficult to satisfy so we’re distinguishing here ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting between the area variance and the use variance. Pursuant now the quote continues “pursuant to that standard a Zoning Board of Appeals may not grant a use variance unless the applicant can demonstrate that 1. It cannot realize a reasonable return on the property demonstrating lack of reasonable return by competent financial evidence. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Sir just to be clear we’re not here on a use variance application you’re on a nonconforming use application. SCOTT VAYER : Okay so I just wanted to clear that if it’s nonconforming use ATTORNEY MESSINA : There’s a statute that applies under the town law for use variances which you are reading from SCOTT VAYER : So anyway if that were to I don’t have to go through it you know the statute is clear and I think there are four factors and I don’t think even one of them could pass on this circumstance. So that said I just want to point out that the you know the law that was passed was hard fought. There were many, many hours of hearings, they were repeated, adjourned sections and it took a huge civic effort on the part of the community to make their views known to the Town Board, Town Board acted on that after a lot of deliberation and with you know much opportunity to the other side to be heard as well. In light of all that I think that the Zoning Board of Appeals should give great deference to the findings and the decisions of the Town Board and I thank you for your consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Before the next person speaks I do want to just mention that member Horning that just left resides on Fishers Island and he has to get back before he has no ferry so he’s only able to be with us until about two o’clock so he wanted to apologize he wanted me to apologize for him. It’s not that he became bored by any means or had some place else to go except home and he will of course as all of us read the transcript in its entirety. Is there someone else who would like to speak? I think she was next actually. I think she was up just before you’ll go next. GRACE GRIFFIN : I’m Grace Griffin I’m here to speak for myself and my husband. We are full time residents of East Marion. Short term rentals drastically change a neighborhood into a party zone of strangers not really good for anyone. The town has been actually in my opinion too lenient with the current rental law but it is an important first step in the harnessing of out of control illegal one to two night rentals that were proliferating. There were and are legal B&B’s, hotels and motels for these short term rentals. For homeowners who rent on my block have had no problem renting their homes in compliance with the new short term law. So it would appear to me that greed is motivating this request to grandfather in a practice that has ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting never been legal. So I urge the Zoning Board to deny this variance I don’t know the legal term or application. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you my pleasure. ROGER HERMAN : My name is Roger Herman and I live on Sound Rd. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pick up the mic a little bit please. ROGER HERMAN : What? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pick the microphone you know that’s in front of you and speak into the mic. ROGER HERMAN : Hello CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s much better thank you. ROGER HERMAN : Okay my name is Roger Herman I live on 18 Sound Rd. and when we bought our house we expected quiet enjoyment and we appreciate the Board’s action and limiting the rentals to two weeks I think that’s reasonable. I have a few questions for one thing my next door neighbor is only fifteen feet and if she coughs I can hear it and if there was a party next door and a parking lot full of cars I certainly wouldn’t like it and what about my property values. With a motel next door it would go down I believe and also if I’m not here every weekend and the house is rentable the plaintiffs or the requesters house is rentable every single weekend throughout the year how can you call that a primary residence? Also in my mortgage the banks asked me am I renting the house or am I is it my primary residence. There is a distinction obviously from the bank if I rent the house every single weekend I’m sure they would not be happy to hear that. There is not much parking and if there’s seven cars parking and parties I certainly wouldn’t like it and as for signing rules if they’re here for two days who’s going to enforce the rules when you’re not there? If it was a B&B at least the owner would be there and be able to say okay you guys are making too much noise please stop you know it’s after ten o’clock I mean reasonable if my neighbor had a party twice a year I can care less let him go blast all they want but fifty two weekends a year I would move. The other thing is looking at the crowds here most of the people can remember when drinking was legal at eighteen so say I turned eighteen and they changed the law to twenty one am I grandfathered in I can still drink till I’m twenty one you know at nineteen I don’t think so. ATTORNEY MESSINA : We’re all too old for that sir. None of us have that argument. ROGER HERMAN : Yea but my father was born before income tax could he not pay? And there is nobody to call what are you going to do call the police every five minutes if there’s a lot of ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting noise? So I think that I commiserate with someone’s need to make a buck but I think two weeks is reasonable and most people should be able to rent their house around here in the summers for good price for two week minimum. I don’t think that’s a hardship and that’s about it. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Thank you sir. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I do want to remind the audience that what is before us is not revisiting the law. It’s in place no one is refuting that. The issue before us is the potential to grandfather those rentals that were short term rentals prior to the enactment of this code change. That’s really what we’ve been asked to address so I would be very grateful if those of you who speak could talk about the grandfathering issue. One sec there’s somebody up here. RAYMOND RODRIGUEZ : Good afternoon my name is Raymond Rodriguez and I live at 460 Anderson Rd. and I’d like to read you this letter that I composed. While not completely satisfied with the decision the Town Board last with the decision of the Town Board last year to regulate short term rentals to a fourteen night minimum I thought that the Town Board arrived at this decision after a series of full and fair hearings. It would be a travesty to undermine that decision and that process by grandfathering those short term rentals that existed before the regulation went into effect. Owners of those short term rentals were illegal commercial businesses existing in residential zones. Furthermore and this is a quote “if these owners have either purchased or refinanced with mortgages as second homes it is likely that they have committed mortgage fraud and are in default” that’s a quote from Miss Cooper in the Suffolk Times. Again there are quality of life issues that continue to affect our quiet enjoyment and safety. When we had our house built we chose a residential area and now find ourselves across the road from a short term rental. Across the road from a revolving door of people who have paid good money to have a good time and have little respect for our environment and community. I ask the ZBA to reject the current attempt to undermine the current short term rental law. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you so much. VICTOR BROWN : Hi my name is Victor Brown. I live on Sound Rd. and I just wanted to give you an example of a situation that occurred on Sound Rd. last year about this time when I was turning onto Sound Rd. to come up to the north end of Sound Rd. where I live. I was surprised and a little distressed to see blinking lights coming from all around the property at 22 Sound Rd. There were two huge vehicles there and it looked to me like there might have been some sort of accident or possibly a fire but as I got closer I could see a large probably medium sized tour bus that had blinking lights going on it and a stretch limo. It was sort of at dusk and I really couldn’t see too well but as I got closer the street was blocked totally and the bus driver moved his vehicle over a little bit so I could sort of begin to get by but I still couldn’t pass. He got out and directed me so that I was able to pass. Well as I was about to pass as I was in the process of ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting coming around and passing the front of the house I was just amazed to see the exodus of a rather large number of people coming out of the house to board the buses and the limousine and my point in all of this is that my immediate impression was that this kind of activity whether it represented an occupancy beyond the legal occupancy you know I don’t know I didn’t stop and you know take a reading on that but clearly to me as I was passing by it was incompatible totally incompatible with our neighborhood and it looked more like a commercial enterprise than residential and that’s the end of my story. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you sir. I think this woman over here was next. NANCY MULLER : My name is Nancy Muller I wanted to just point out that your sitting on the brink of a flood gate and if you grant the one grandfathered clause you’re going to have hundreds of people who are going to also be wanting to be grandfathered because in fact there were hundreds and hundreds of people on Air B&B and Home Away it’s going to completely change everything that the Town Board did which I think they considered very carefully that’s all I have to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Nancy. THERESA TAYLOR : Madam chairman and surviving board members thank you for letting me speak. I will not exactly fit in to the plan that you have for today because I live CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m sorry you need to state your name for the record. THERESA TAYLOR : Oh I’m so sorry. Theresa Taylor and I live in Greenport and because I live in Greenport I may not adhere to some of the things that you need to know because I am not affected by this I’m old my vocabulary is gone. ATTORNEY MESSINA : This particular application. THERESA TAYLOR : Yes but I just particular application but I just have a few comments about short term rentals which have of course affected your decisions already and I hope will affect the decisions in Greenport. My husband and I can you hear me? My husband and I bought a house built a house actually eleven years ago in Greenport in an R2 zone and we were looking forward to it because with charming family houses and a close knit neighborhood we thought we would be very happy there and we still are to a degree. Now counting just the one block we live in there are three houses being used for commercial use providing short term rentals to tourists. If anything and I’m just making a few comments here about the different aspects of my dislike for short term rentals if anything we need long term rentals so young people and others like hospital employees who cannot afford to buy houses can at least live in them. Think too of the problems created for the hotels. We have two hotels in Greenport and any number of ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting legitimate B&B’s. These people must obey regulations. They have to pay taxes while those who run Air B&B’s and others are bound to no one. This is not the culture that most of us want. I don’t want to hear as I have heard from other people change is unavoidable you have to put up with it because this is what we’re doing. Some changes enhance an area and others imperil it. I would like to see that the governing I know that the governing bodies have the power to change these things or not change these things as they did in years past. I want to go back just a short distance a short distance for me because I’m old that there were years where many changes were repelled or forbidden here on the North Fork. Perhaps you know that if not for the will to prevent change we would now have a nuclear plant just east of Jamesport. You can look it up. It was 1975. Then less than ten years ago here we would have had a liquid natural gas plant right in the middle of the Sound between Mattituck and Southold with barges coming and going regularly to load and unload. Thanks to some kind of protest from residents and intelligent decisions from governing bodies we made those changes impossible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me I’m sorry I don’t mean to be rude but those are the kinds of comments that actually drove the Town Board to make the decision for the two week minimum and we’re not really disputing that. No one is disputing that. We know that change has happened and we’re moving forward. What we’re addressing here is whether or not that change affected those short term rentals that were operating as such prior to about November of last year. THERESA TAYLOR : I understand. I have just one paragraph to go and I’m not a lawyer and I have no Latin phrases to add to this but on a personal note some years ago Bob and I spent the night in Cape May, New Jersey. The house was on a very seedy block. It was a so called B&B and it had been very gorgeous all Victorian homes before but it was late in the night it was raining we had no options and that’s where we stayed. In the morning our hosts started a conversation. He was an elderly man and he informed us there would be no breakfast cause it really wasn’t a B&B. He had no permits and he said every house on the block was operating the same way now. It used to be real B&B’s he said with class but so many folks opened their homes illegally that the rules could not be enforced. Now the town has no soul. That’s exactly what he said. What do we want our communities to become? Excuse the drama but we need the will to harness the changes that you have already made thank God and that may rob our communities of their souls. So I hope that Greenport will soon follow suit and make a law similar to the one you have or something else that will prevent them. Thank you for listening. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you so much for your comments. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting PATRICIA MOORE : Good afternoon. I wanted I think you raised a very good point which is this is not we’re not addressing the wisdom of the adoption of this law whether it was wise or not wise and it was most of the comments that I’m hearing here are based on CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat I’m sorry to interrupt you except I don’t think you stated your name and when we get we know who you are but the transcriber needs to know who you are thank you sorry to interrupt you. PATRICIA MOORE : Patricia Moore. I’m hear just listening to the exchange. What in my in our opinion my husband and I we had several questions about this the particular law and it’s been our opinion that based on the way that the Town Board chose to adopt this law that they chose to adopt it as a zoning regulation and it’s pretty straight forward, pretty clear in zoning law in the state of New York and actually it would be the same law pretty much throughout the country that it is any use that has been established prior to the adoption of zoning change is grandfathered and is considered preexisting nonconforming to the extent it’s then becomes nonconforming. With respect to the issue of compliance whether it was intentional abandoned or not I think the fact that this law has criminal enforcement would not their choice to not continue to criminally violate the code does not go to the question of whether or not there has been an intentional abandonment of the use. So I think that these are red herrings that are being raised. I don’t believe that that’s an accurate conclusion that can be drawn by the testimony that was submitted by the particular applicant that she is presently conforming because quite frankly for her to admit otherwise would be would lead to criminal enforcement and would be a violation of her due process and right to self-incrimination. So her choice to comply was solely her choice but does not lead to an extinguishment of a preexisting use. Finally the issue of taxes I appreciate the inquiry however it is irrelevant. As far as taxes go the county the imposition of the taxes was a hotel tax. It was never interpreted to be a tax on let’s call it the short term rental because what people were doing was taking a single family dwelling and renting the single family dwelling. Under state law a home a single family dwelling can be rented at will or it with certain landlord tenant protections if the tenancy exceeds thirty days so the choice by homeowners to rent whether it was for a weekend or for a week or two weeks whatever anything less than thirty days would have been entitled to landlord tenant law protections but I don’t believe that the county in their adoption of it ever anticipated the rental of a single family house as requiring collection of sales tax or hotel tax. So those are my opinions. I respect everybody’s opinion but I believe that as a matter of law your special counsel will advise you that I hope that he will agree with me. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting ADRIENNE GREENBERG : ZBA Board my name is Adrienne Greenberg. I live in Greenport after oh I live on Sound Rd. a few houses away from the applicant. After madam chair has directed us to try to hone our discussion this is where my I am now going to go. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you so much. ADRIENNE GREENBERG : I give you guys credit not to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You get the gold star. ADRIENNE GREENBERG : As I understand the issue today short term renters who have rented out their houses not their homes these are houses, homes by the way and houses we all of us put a lot of money into it. We all have landscapers or we do it ourselves. We all have cleaning people or we do it ourselves and we all upgrade our homes as the years go on. So just to say that you’re losing a lot of money because this is your business is not by business it’s my home and I still do the same thing. Anyhow, these people are renting out their houses prior to the Southold Board’s ruling are asking to be permitted to continue renting out their homes and that only new people should be now responsible for following the law. Only new people should be responsible for following the law. They want to be grandfathered into the previous existence. To me this is does not make sense. I’m a retired educator so I’d like to use the landmark decision in 1954 Brown vs. the Board of Education. The Supreme Court ruled that all segregation in the United States was illegal and must stop. Segregation of the schools is illegal and must stop. If these Southold homeowners had their way in the Brown vs. the Board of Education using the same logic they would argue that school segregation be permitted by all of those schools who had segregated their schools in the past and the only people responsible to follow the Supreme Court’s decision would be the new schools. This is not logical. This does not make sense. I believe that the Southold Board spent a lot of time making their decision. Please do not rescind the Southold Town Board’s previous ruling. Do not permit people who rent out their houses to wiggle out of this law by asking to be grandfathered in. This was not the intent of the new law. ABIGAIL FIELD : Hi. I thank you very much for your patience and it seems that you well- understand how oh I’m sorry Abigail Field I live at 27525 Main Rd. in Cutchogue. I appreciate your patience and your understanding that this is a very narrow issue. Like Pat Moore and like Salem I just really like to tie us back to what we’re looking at. It is true that if you rule grandfathering applies that there might be a few hundred applications that follow because they were a few hundred last I counted. I actually counted and I actually counted one time going very carefully through VRBO and separating out ones that were in Jamesport and ones that were on Shelter Island because depending on how you would do the searches it might be lots of non-Southold properties thrown into number totals. There was about three hundred of them at ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting the time so you might well get a few hundred applications if you find grandfathering applies but the point is that’s what the Constitution requires. This isn’t about as you well know re-litigating the merits of the law and this isn’t about any kind of factual scenario whether it’s other sorts of constitutional rights as in Brown vs. Board of Education or whether it’s about drinking or anything else. This is a property rights issue. This is a due process issue. This could not this is a zoning specific issue and I’m sure you all well understand these basic points and I think you also when you think about it recognize that the tax question is irrelevant whether or not it applies. I respect Pat Moore’s opinion Suffolk County disagrees that you know that can get litigated someday but that it doesn’t have to do with the land use question in terms of whether or not transient rentals were permitted before. That is a factual question I think Salem made a fairly good record as to what the evidence is that this was a legal practice. I at one town hearing entered an evidence from a book called In Her Own Name by Frederica Wachsberger that in East Marion at the turn of the century there were transient rentals happening as people would come off the boats. This isn’t something of recent era and I would just encourage and there’s a lot of humanity on both sides you have upset people who can hear someone cough thirty feet away well that’s true if teenager who lived in the house year round were having a party in that sun room every Saturday the noise issue would exists but there would be no doubt as to the legality of the teenagers being obnoxious in their own home as teenagers want to do. So I just encourage you to please, please stay very closely tied to the law and the Constitution. There are sympathies all around. It is a tough job you’ve got to do but luckily when you anchor it in the law I think you’ll find it’s very clear that grandfathering applies and the fact that people don’t like it doesn’t change the reality of the law and the Constitution. Thank you for your time. TED HOYLE : Hello my name is Ted Hoyle. I live at 460 Anderson Rd. Right across the road from me is one of these houses and if you passed and allowed these properties to be grandfathered in that will definitely have a very adverse effect on myself and my husband Ray. The people that bought this house bought it about two and half years ago. They’ve never lived in it. I would be surprised if I counted up all the nights that they stayed there it would be a little more than fourteen nights themselves. They rented it out entirely on weekends, during the week sometimes there are five or six cars from out of state there. The people that come there they’re party people. They’re partying making a great deal of noise. There’s no one accountable at all. The owners live in Brooklyn and they don’t even come out to clean out the house when one group leaves and another comes in. They just have a cleaning service to come in and you know clean it up. So I would be very adversely affected by the fact that this loophole and I really think of it as a loophole if it’s applied it’s certainly going to make my life like it was before. I was very happy with the decision of the Town Board to restrict the rentals to fourteen nights. Now with this loophole I can just see a huge flood someone else mentioned that as well a huge flood of people who are going to be coming and say well I was doing it before so now I can do it. Make ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting no mistake about it this is a commercial establishment. The owners are not there. They are renting it like a motel. It’s a residential area but they pay no attention to that. I have a letter here I’m not going to read it because a lot of the points have already been covered from a neighbor of mine who also is affected by this house. Her name is Diane Ravitch. So I’ll just quote a few things from her. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ted just so you know we have that letter. TED HOYLE : Oh you do? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do. It’s in our file. Actually we have a lot of letters in our files from all over the place you know and they are all part of our public record. If you have submitted something or if you know of someone who submitted it I guarantee it we’ve got it. We have stacks like this from counsel, from you know Mr. Katsh and from some of you in the audience I know have submitted letters cause I know some of who you are. TED HOYLE : So I don’t need to hand this to you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don’t have to because we unless it’s different than what we already is this a new one? ATTORNEY MESSINA : You can hand it up sir. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don’t you do that just to make sure that we let me just make sure that it’s the one that we’ve got. Yep we have this one. I’ll keep it anyway. TED HOYLE : Excellent. Well in closing I just urge you please to consider the ramifications that will happen to any number of people if this grandfathering clause goes into effect. It won’t affect just a few people. There will be a lot of people affected in a very adverse way. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. Your name please. SHERRI THIRLBY : Hi my name is Sherri Thirlby and I’ve lived on Soundview Avenue for thirty years in Southold. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi. Would you spell it please? SHERRI THIRLBY : (spells name) Soundview Ave. in Southold. I bought my home thirty years ago in an noncommercial zone because what I value is the quiet beauty and the natural sounds of the birds and the wetlands on my property. I recently came to understand that my next door neighbors have plans to sell their home and it occurred to me that the possibility of an absentee owned Air B&B business could be in my future. So it came as a relief when I heard ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting about the Town Board’s decision to impose a two week rental guideline. Now I hear that the decision is being challenged by established absentee owned Air B&B businesses which is quite worrisome. My worry and my concern extend beyond the personal to the North Fork in general. There are hundreds of previously established Air B&B’s and the precedence of an overturn would change the fabric of many of the homes we love so well. It happened in Montauk and in East Hampton and it can happen here. Can you imagine living next to a house that has a party every weekend? It’s a reality for these people. I know people who have to live like that with six to twelve plus different people next door or across the street every single weekend. It is a nightmare. This is the reality that can happen to each and every one of us. Is this what we want for our lives? Is this what we want for the North Fork? I imagine that the investors in these Air B&B’s will spend a lot of money moving forward on lawyers to convince the Town and the Zoning Board to overturn the two week rental minimum. It stands to reason because I am sure they’re losing lots of money but I would urge the Zoning Board to preserve our rights to quiet enjoyment in our residential neighborhoods. Thank you very much for your time. I’ve made some changes to this letter since sitting here because I understand some of the issues I was talking about really weren’t relevant so may I retype this and submit this to you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course, well depends on what we do. If we I don’t know since you is it what you just read? SHERRI THIRLBY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay if you’ve read it and that’s part of it SHERRI THIRLBY : So you don’t need a written copy? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don’t need a written copy it’s in the public record that’s in our transcript. SHERRI THIRLBY : And thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My pleasure. SALEM KATSH : When I first came up here I saw all these potential new clients. I don’t think that’s the case anymore. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Not so much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You really are a lawyer huh? SALEM KATSH : I don’t think so. A few points if the Board would like to see more contracts for Lisa we’d be happy to provide them. We gave one as an example of the fact that she’s been ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting engaged in short term renting and she’s done it continuously. Yes she stopped doing it for less than fourteen nights because she wanted to comply with the law. I can’t imagine that that would ATTORNEY MESSINA : You’re arguing counselor is that she comply while her appeal so to speak was pending correct? SALEM KATSH : That would be yes. ATTORNEY MESSINA : Okay we recognize that. SALEM KATSH : I was about to put it another way but then I remembered that a judge once told me shut up and agree. There are three hundred that was on the record three hundred houses that were engaged in short term renting so that’s about the population that is now capped okay. New buyers like Miss Hollender they were on notice when they bought that this practice was going on for years. Maybe they weren’t aware of it but it was happening all over the place. Some of the letters that we submitted from people who wrote in said that they’ve been doing it for ten years. So this is not a brand new practice that was you know sprung on unsuspecting homeowners. When I bought when we excuse me when we bought our house in Orient Point we knew that there was somebody next door that was engaged in renting. I lived in the city all my life so I didn’t even give it a second thought. There was plenty of open air, birds and singing for me but it was a known fact. This was not a hidden agenda. Now yeah I just okay there could be these parties whether it’s a fifteen night rental which the law does not prohibit or a thirteen night rental which the law does prohibit. I can’t understand you know the law really in that sense doesn’t make sense unless the intent was to block all rentals because they knew that nobody would, very few people would rent for more than two weeks that maybe so but as a matter of logic people are concerned about parties and so forth those still can go on based on the existing residence who party based on people who visit which is allowed. I can have thirty people over to my house and that’s permitted or people who rent for more than for a month. They can have parties every weekend. So the problem is real but it’s proving too much. Now if this Board recognizes the right to continue doing of grandfathering it’s not necessarily the end of the story. The Town Board and I don’t want to criticize the law they passed but they certainly can adopt new regulations many of which were recommended permits, inspections, fees all sorts of regulations that would apply I think to people who are grandfathered. You don’t you want some circumvention you want to put a corral around what can happen? The Board has the power to do that. Mr. Russell on August 25, 2015 last year when the law was passed there was a little discussion between him and Miss Doherty that’s the name correct? Yea and he made the point very, very clearly that his concern was not he didn’t want to regulate it. He wanted to ban it and he wasn’t going to go down the path of permits or other things he wanted ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting to ban it and you know that can be supplemented by other provisions the Board has the authority to pass that would meet some of the objections. You know there was a lot of argument that why didn’t they just if they’re worried about bad actors why don’t they enforce the laws on nuisance and noise and Russell said no, no, no this isn’t about bad actors this is only about quality of life turn over. Well he solved the turn over problem to an extent to an extent and as you made the point there’s a balance here and there are rights on both sides. As far as the soul of the community I’m a newcomer two years here. I had a house on Shelter Island for twenty five years and that’s why when I was retiring we came here. I thought I was going to retire anyway. What got me involved in this was not money God knows and it wasn’t that I wanted to rent. It was that I was offended by the kinds of xenophobic by the kinds of speculative by the kinds of exaggerations that were pouring forth at these hearings that were not responsible ways of discussing the issue and that the Board would adopt this notion of an invisible law offended me. I mean I’ve got a lot of experience practicing in the city and I know what I know some things and I know that that was crazy. I know a lot of things but some things I know better than others so that’s why talk about we need a community that has a rule of law and it was not honored in this case and it’s important that we understand that you just can’t walk in and do away with somebody’s rights because you know it’s an inconvenience. So with that I would like to conclude and thank you so much for your attention and thank you all for your comments and for the discussion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Mr. Katsh. EILEEN POWERS : Eileen Powers again. I just want to correct the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay if it’s just a quick correction cause this gentleman wanted to speak too. EILEEN POWERS : Yea and maybe we didn’t make it clear but Laurie Hollender and Scott MacIntyre have owned their property on Sound Rd. for twenty one years. Twenty one years ago when they purchased that property there was no such thing in this Town as these short term rentals. People weren’t SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE : Inaudible EILEEN POWERS : renting out their house on a nightly basis like Ms. Cradit is doing in the community where Ms. Hollender and Mr. MacIntyre purchased their house and on this issue about what difference does it make you know you can have a party next door with teenagers in a year round rental versus a short term rental and certainly that’s true. You can have a bad year round property owner next door to you but you have an opportunity to form a relationship with a longer term property owner or user even a renter next door and there’s also they have a ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting vested interest and in how they treat you because they have to live there also and they have to return there so these people who come in here and treat it like a motel they have no vested interest in the community. They’re gone the next day or two days later and that is a significant difference and for the Town to have considered when they adopted the law so and just so we’re clear Ms. Cradit had remedies available to her when the town adopted the new zoning regulation. She chose to abandon the use and to comply with the current law. ATTORNEY MESSINA : We understand that’s your position. Thank you. EILEEN POWERS : Thank you. TED THIRLBY : My name is Ted Thirlby I live in Southold and just briefly I’d like to comment on the idea that if the three hundred or so short term renters are grandfathered you could increase regulation on them by passing new rules on them couldn’t those also be argued that they’re grandfathered? So I’m not sure where that was going and I’d like to read just an excerpt from a letter from Carol and Steven Greer who live on the same block. It’s a longer letter which you have but I’ll read this excerpt just to make this point. It’s unfortunate that the 2015 short term regulation is not respected for what it was a compromise informed by many voices heard at multiple Town meetings and duly considered by the Town Board and subsequently written and enacted to manage the new industry of short term rental businesses hopping up in houses. Those seeking not to comply with the 2015 regulations do so for personal benefit despite the negotiated public legislation looking for loopholes without respect for the compromises that evolved from the public forums. Compromise on the part of the short term rental homeowners does not seem to be on the table. We call on the town Zoning Board and the town’s Board of Trustees to enforce residential block zoning restrictions to protect residential quality of life. M. SCOTT VAYER : Again M. Scott Vayer I spoke earlier. I also neglected I think at that time although I pointed out that I live on Sound Rd. and not far from the applicant I don’t think I told you I am a full time year round rental year round owner rather and have been here even I don’t know now and I’ve been here for several years. My kids have gone to the high schools in both Mattituck and in Greenport and we regard this as our community. I don’t own another house this is where I live. That all said you know I think it’s very important to note that there are legal arguments and there are equities and in this type of a situation and I mean there are legal arguments and there are equities. I don’t think you can disregard necessarily either direction but in terms of legal it may seem cold it may seem calculated but there are reasons why these laws are the way they are. So on the legal point I just wanted to you know address this comment about the suspension or abandonment of the use. I don’t regard it as a requirement for abandonment of the use and I think it should be clear there’s no moral issue and there’s no question of intention in the law. The law speaks not of an intentional abandonment it just ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting speaks of the use having been discontinued and then having been reinstated or seeking to be reinstated and the law is very clear that when it’s been discontinued it shall not be reinstated. Counselor Powers did say there are remedies I don’t know exactly what the remedies are under the zoning law but I imagine even with criminal law you know and Ms. Cradit has a lawyer. They could of gone out start an injunction, they could of protected their conduct instead she continued to rent but without the nonconforming use so I think the law is extremely clear that when you do not avail yourself of the process harsh as it may seem you don’t have the right to grandfather anymore. Additionally this whole argument about first amendment and or fifth amendment yea she shouldn’t be required to incriminate herself constitutionally that’s nonsense. First of all nobody’s compelling her ATTORNEY MESSINA : Sir nobody asked her to answer questions M. SCOTT VAYER : Exactly nobody’s asked compelling testimony even documents ATTORNEY MESSINA : I wouldn’t even address that if I were you. M. SCOTT VAYER : Got it. So I’ll address equities because Justice Brightell years ago told me don’t worry about convincing the court on the law they’ll figure that out just convince them you’re right. So I gotta tell you we’re right you know. You’ve got most of Sound Rd. here crying to you please we don’t want this thing to continue and it disturbs everybody. The issue is not merely a matter of the volume of these and the turn over what Mr. Russell said was also that is has to do with the quiet enjoyment. It has to do with the atmosphere in the neighborhood you have a lot of people who are threatened and it’s not xenophobia. They simply don’t want to have an incredible volume of transients coming through their neighborhoods. Some people have small children, some people are elderly some people may be paranoid but they don’t want it and that’s their right. When we bought in to have our houses in a nice neighborhood such as we have we chose the R2 zoning, we chose to live in these residential neighborhoods so that we would not be exposed to that kind of traffic and to end up saying that okay now there’s going to be an exception for hundreds of short term rentals doesn’t make any sense. Then the zoning ordinance really has no teeth. Just by way of clarity it’s important to note as well that there is a difference between the two week rental and a one weekend rental if somebody can do a one weekend rental they can pay the price for the one weekend come out and party. If they have to pay the price for two weeks if that house is off the market for two weeks it means at least that the neighbor could probably get sleep on one weekend but it also means that whoever is going have to rent that house has a higher bar for coming in and doing a party. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sir I think those are all arguments that are very clearly articulated before the Town Board and resulted in the current legislation so ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting M. SCOTT VAYER : We all took time off from work today to get here so we appreciate CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We appreciate you all being here very much M. SCOTT VAYER : We are and I know you want to cut me off to move on and I’ll let it go and I leave it to your discretion but I would urge you to consider those points as well as the others that haven’t been raised by us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We certainly will. We will consider every point made here today. Final comment perhaps oh wait okay. GARY NAVARRA : My name is Gary Navarra I live in Mattituck. I was just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you spell your name sir? GARY NAVARRA : (Spells name) I was just curious what your criteria is in order to grandfather in a property. I know in this area Long Island there are a lot of farms and businesses that have been established in little areas that have been there for years and years and I’m not talking about since 2014 I’m talking about properties that have uses that would be nonconforming today but they’ve been there forty, fifty, sixty, seventy years generation after generation. I understand that to be grandfathered in. I don’t understand anybody that’s been in about the last since I’ve looked at the zoning laws probably about twenty five years there have been zoning laws in place addressing short term rentals. NYS looks at a rental anything under thirty days as not legal for a rental house. It has to be over thirty days in the state of New York according to state tax laws. I had that from my accountant. Last count last summer I counted over three hundred and fifty rentals in the Hamlet of Mattituck alone that are short term rentals. Yes we have a new fourteen day law okay and I talked to a man that’s doing a wedding the 20 th of May he rented six houses for basically two nights okay but they’re all fourteen day rentals so the idea that he had to pay for fourteen days he’s only staying for two was not a factor in his use in renting of that house so the amount of days in order to have an enforcement of this law all those houses are going to have parties on them cause you got a whole load of people coming to this wedding is irrelevant. It should be thirty days or more I think the Zoning Board of Appeals has to revisit this question of the time frame of these fourteen days or thirty days in order to be able to enforce such a law. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well sir I must tell you we don’t have the jurisdiction we are not the legislatures the Town Board does that. GARY NAVARRA : I understand that. ?? May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We in this case are being asked to use our authority to interrupt the code okay GARY NAVARRA : Okay no I do realize that but this is something that you know we keep talking about this fourteen days I think it doesn’t matter how many days it is the question is whether you want to open the floodgates and say well there’s only three hundred. There’s three hundred that you know about but it’s probably three thousand. Now if you want to legitimize three thousand rentals okay that’s a different story. So there’s nobody that knows exactly how many short term rentals are here but it’s in the thousands it’s not in the hundreds and to start going backwards and start grandfathering in you know we’re talking if someone is renting a house for thirty years and I know people that have rented their houses for thirty years okay I can consider that anybody in the last twenty years it’s a different world and I don’t believe that should be considered grandfathering properties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you I appreciate your comments. No we can’t you have to be at a microphone to address the Board and I think we’ve had pretty much enough testimony here have we? Alright so thank you all for your comments. I’m going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ??