Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/07/2016 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Southold, New York July 7, 2016 9:30 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES – Member GERARD GOEHRINGER – Member GEORGE HORNING – Member (left at 2:15 P.M.) KENNETH SCHNEIDER – Member KIM FUENTES – Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY – Town Attorney ? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Russell H. Bates #6964 3 - 9 James O’Hagen #6945 10 - 23 Wickham Road, LLC #6968 24 - 31 Bill Livanos #6965 31 - 35 Robert and Christine Hempel #6969 35 - 38 Neil and Lori Kearns #6962 39 - 41 Gabriel and Katherine Acri #6966 41 - 43 Robert and Beth Elliott #6967 44 - 56 Anthony and Lisa Sannino #6882 56 - 66 Frank J. and Elizabeth G. Kelly #6946 66 - 79 ? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6964 – RUSSELL H. BATES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Russell Bates oh I’m sorry I have to do SEQRA. Okay the first public hearing before the Board today is for Russell H. Bates #6964. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s April 18, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct an accessory storage shed at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 2) accessory storage shed proposed in other than the code required rear yard located at 15 Mill Road (adj. to Mattituck Creek) in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent this application please come to the podium and please state and spell your name for us. CHRIS MAUCERI : I’m Chris Mauceri. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. This accessory storage shed is 1) has a bulkhead setback of 11 feet where the code requires 75 feet and a location in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard location and 3) a lot coverage of 28% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. Do you have a copy of the LWRP? CHRIS MAUCERI : I don’t I was unexpectedly I thought Mr. Bates was going to be here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh I see well it is consistent. CHRIS MAUCERI : I am very familiar with the property I don’t know if you guys are aware it’s the old Bridge (inaudible) house with a turn style bridge that used to cross the creek so the house is basically built on a peninsula. He’s just looking to do a 5 foot wide 16 foot long shed for kayak storage, bicycles, BBQ. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear we did do personal site inspections the Board goes out and visits every property before a public hearing. There is a sort of a lean to long storage shed almost on top of the bulkhead at the moment is that staying or going or what? CHRIS MAUCERI : No that’s that was for temporary CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh fine because I figured you couldn’t get anything else in there. CHRIS MAUCERI : Right, right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so that’s going. This is attached to the house according to the drawing is that correct? ? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHRIS MAUCERI : No it’s abutting right to the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so it’s not literally built onto the house? CHIRS MAUCERI : No it’s free standing but right next to the house correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that’s why it’s then considered as an accessory. CHRIS MAUCERI : And he’s looking to the shed and all cedar shingles he’s looking to update the house with cedar shingles, cedar roof, new windows to try to bring it to I mean I guess it’s a I’ve never been up the creek before by boat I guess it’s the first structure you come he wants to make it a show piece when you enter the creek so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause you would have to determine what’s there now is a temporary as built shed. CHRIS MAUCERI : Right, right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let’s see what the Board has to say about it George do you have questions? MEMBER HORNING : I had questions on the size of the shed and the resulting square footage of the shed. I think in the application you sited it as being 75 square feet the shed and yet you have the dimensions of I thought it was 65 I thought I saw somewhere. CHRIS MAUCERI : It should be 5 by 16 should be 80 square feet. MEMBER HORNING : Right not 75. CHRIS MAUCERI : I don’t know how that got on there Mr. Bates did the application so I just MEMBER HORNING : Right so what I’m saying is that additional 5 foot square foot affects the total lot coverage I would think and increases it you know if you’re asking for 28.3 with a 75 foot shed and an 80 foot shed would increase it more than that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a prior on this #5040 January 10, 2002 for a deck addition that granted a 21% lot coverage at that time so the proposed shed is going to increase the lot coverage by 7% it doesn’t make sense. MEMBER DANTES : Eighty square feet is a 7% increase maybe they calculated differently based on the buildable area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The determination I’m looking right at it ? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Maybe the wetlands were surveyed differently for the buildable area I don’t know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea cause right here the applicant is requesting a setback of 13 feet from the bulkhead and a lot coverage of 21% for proposed open deck 5 by 20 feet and I’m pretty sure it was granted as applied for yep it was grant those variances as applied for subject to the condition that the deck remain open to the sky so that was 21% in 2002. There hasn’t been anything else built since then so I don’t understand how come we got it bumped up to 28%. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I question that as well. It’s like what else is contributing to the lot coverage I see on the site plan there’s a something called a wood plat that’s next to the dock on the site inspection it looks a little dilapidated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a platform of some sort yea plat I guess it’s platform. CHRIS MAUCERI : I mean there is a fixed dock going north west that’s I guess the previous owner was a commercial fisherman so it’s a very big dock but there’s no the house did come with a small floating dock which is (inaudible) MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But those wouldn’t contribute to lot coverage. CHRIS MAUCERI : No, no that’s there’s nothing on the property like I say a probably a 3 by 20 deck on the rear of the house facing north MEMBER SCHNEIDER : 5 by 20 so that was granted a variance back in ’02 for maximum 21% lot coverage that’s the way I read it and now we’re jumping with the proposed shed of 80 square feet to 28.3 I mean that’s a lot of what’s 80 square feet at 5600 what percentage is that like 1.5 or something 1.4? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The proposed shed is presumably 1.3%. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That’s 75 square feet. George just pointed out it’s 5 by 16. MEMBER HORNING : Which is 80 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mark Schwartz did this site plan. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I would be hesitant to grant 28%. MEMBER HORNING : Well it may be greater it might be 29 we don’t know. ? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a very tiny lot odd shaped. I don’t have a problem with the bulkhead setback and I don’t have a problem with the side yard location I mean there’s no rear yard anyway. It’s just about the lot coverage. CHRIS MAUCERI : Yea no rear yard and basically his yard well actually his driveway his yard that’s the town road (inaudible) bridge so I guess he has an easement through the town so I mean even though the entire yard is bluestone so it looks like his yard but that’s he maintains that for the town. MEMBER DANTES : I’m looking at 10/29/14 on the property card it says there’s a building permit for an as built deck building permit 39326. CHRIS MAUCERI : What date? MEMBER DANTES : 10/29/14. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2014? MEMBER DANTES : That’s what it says on the property card. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No this one was from 2002 for a deck addition. In 2002 there was a variance for a deck addition. MEMBER DANTES : So are we missing something? Yea but I’m looking at a building permit or at least it says on the property card CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe they didn’t build it until MEMBER DANTES : 2014? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That could be. What’s the size? MEMBER DANTES : It doesn’t say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe because those variances ran with the land at the time there was no expiration so it’s possible sometimes people build things a lot later CHRIS MAUCERI : Right, right actually after the sale of the house I had to jack the whole deck up cause it was MEMBER DANTES : Shouldn’t we have a C.O. for the deck? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we should. See if it’s in the application. ? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I see a C.O. preexisting C.O. as built deck addition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What year is the C.O.? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : 3/12/2015. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so it’s everything is fine. What’s confusing is the lot coverage. I don’t know how CHRIS MAUCERI : Twenty one percent a little 80 square foot shed is not going bring it up to 28 I don’t know who calculated that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not going to bump it up to 28 so Mark Schwartz’s survey says that basically. We need to evaluate I’ll tell you what why don’t we do this I don’t think the Board has a problem with the shed the bulkhead or the location it’s the lot coverage that doesn’t make sense unless the 21% somehow was not correct to begin with but I doubt that that was the case so why don’t we just adjourn this to the Special Meeting to give you some time to go to the Building Department or to have Mr. Bates CHRIS MAUCERI : Or I could check with Mark Schwartz and go over CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Check with Mark and just figure out what in the world is going on with the lot coverage. CHRIS MAUCERI : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then just submit that information to the office and depending on what it is we’re probably going to just close this at the Special Meeting in two weeks and then we can deliberate but we need to have that information as soon as possible. CHRIS MAUCERI : Alright that’s fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that make sense to the Board? We’re not going to solve it here so you got to go back to Mark. CHRIS MAUCERI : Yea go back and get the proper coverage of what the house is and deck and (inaudible) the shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I’m going to make a motion to adjourn MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I just have a quick question just to be clear that shed structure that’s presently there that’s the one you’re going to you propose to move next to the house? CHRIS MAUCERI : Yes. ? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay. CHRIS MAUCERI : Moving the Montauk daisies things like that level out you know it’s probably going to go on concrete on footings and things like that secure to the ground but Mr. Bates also like I said wants to renovate the whole house so it’ll be a matter of moving it again to re-shingle new windows things like that have the whole thing blend in you know he just wants to let it weather let it go grey MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is he going to maintain the osprey nest? CHRIS MAUCERI : That’s you know he also wants to do some other things and we’re also discussing about replacing the bulkhead cause he wants to do a lower deck clean up the steel that’s back there I guess the fishermen used to drive a fork lift back there so I said hey you know what talk to D.E.C. tell them you’ll supply a new pole if you know get permission to you know he’s got four of them up there I took a picture last night so it’s like put a thirty foot pole in and bolt it to the existing piling you know that way you don’t have to worry about it. Yea it looks pretty bad. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the one that’s there now that you’re saying is temporary is that going to be renovated? CHRIS MAUCERI : We’ll renovate that one and move it right abut it to the house correct. MEMBER HORNING : That is the shed then? CHRIS MAUCERI : Yes. MEMBER HORNING : Is there any place in the rear yard to have it so that you don’t need a variance or you know the area CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don’t really have a rear yard. CHRIS MAUCERI : The rear yard I presume is the north side of the house and you already have the deck there and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s the water side. MEMBER HORNING : Yea. CHRIS MAUCERI : This is the widest piece of the property. MEMBER HORNING : We need to ask these questions. ? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHRIS MAUCERI : That’s fine no it’s the widest piece of the property cause on the west side facing Old Mill is basically five feet to walk on and it’s all rip rap so he’s just looking to he’s in the city so he could store everything away when he’s not here make the property look as neat as possible. MEMBER HORNING : There’s no other suitable area in the rear yard? CHRIS MAUCERI : No, no (inaudible) oh we’ll put it up by Kominsky’s property he said well that’s town property you can’t go all the way to the south end of the property because if you did you’d be blocking the entrance into the yard so (inaudible) I guess you call the southeast corner facing MEMBER HORNING : Well that would be in the front yard. CHRIS MAUCERI : Yea well I don’t front yard side yard well MEMBER HORNING : (inaudible) CHRIS MAUCERI : Yea the southeast corner on the east side. MEMBER HORNING : Anything but the rear yard requires the variance. CHRIS MAUCERI : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else? Alright motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting which is on July 21 st. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6945 – JAMES O’HAGEN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is James O’Hagen #6945. This was adjourned from May 19, 2016 so I don’t need to read the Legal Notice again into the record. This is for a proposed four bedroom accessory bed and breakfast. PAT MOORE : Good morning Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicants. I did already give the attorney a copy of the memo of prior to the meeting so he has it. Before I begin I want to just give you as many documents as you need. I’ve given you I delivered yesterday a memorandum of law. I also provided it today in case you didn’t have it and I also have photographs that I’m giving you today. Also Mrs. Rene Murray gave me a copy of her NYS driver’s license I’ll just give you one for the file which she has actually her driver’s license has Windward Rd. as her permanent residence and that seemed to have been an issue last time so here is proof of her residency. This is a continuation of a hearing but in order to meet all of the legal requirements of this special permit I did provide the memorandum of law to discuss what the law is of course you all know as far as the special permit and the fact that a B&B is considered a residential use it would be the equivalent of an accessory to the principal use of a residence. I’ve also provided to you the legal standard and burden of proof which is that of lesser than what would be a variance a standard variance. I believe that the applicants did provide sufficient evidence last time at the first hearing however I did provide an outline that matches the burden of proof and matches the standards that have to be met. I don’t want to have to read this all to you so I thought if you have certain questions we can address those questions the writing speaks for itself. Specifically and most importantly I think for neighbors is to be sure that there’s adequate parking at the property and in her application she showed on her plans her house is a five bedroom house one of the rooms is for the owners and therefore they have two parking spaces just for their family. They also provided a room a excuse me a parking space per bedroom for the B&B guests so on the property is identified specific parking on premises so that there is no fear to the neighbors that parking is going to be off premises or blocking the right of way. I know that that was an issue that neighbors were concerned with. Also in order to just give you I know you’ve all been there but for the record in the time that this hearing has been held over the owners have added even more landscaping then what was previously there. The photographs show you the number of evergreens that have been placed along the property line to provide privacy to the owners and to the neighbors so in addition to just the privacy that is already part of the design of the subdivision and the direction of the house and yard and so on they’ve added mature screening significant mature screening to add to the privacy. The different photographs show you that. You can see also in the back that the mature trees that have been there already are already blocking the views of adjacent homes. Finally you can also ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting see from the rear deck there are no neighbors to the back that is the Pappas property. The Pappas property is being farmed by one of the Pappas Vasilis is one of the Pappas nephews. That property is being discussed for land preservation if the parties come to an agreement but that property eventually at least at this point is being farmed. There are no homes behind this particular property. I’d rather just address any issues you might have because again I don’t want to have to go through reading all of the standards. They’re very you know they’re clearly setforth. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’ve addressed them very thoroughly in your memorandum of law. PAT MOORE : Yes good, good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to talk about the number of proposed guest bedrooms. We’ve all done an interior inspection as you know. The house has actually three bedrooms upstairs with two bathrooms. One would be three guest bedrooms they’re proposing to use upstairs. The two bedrooms will share a bathroom and one bedroom is en suite so it has its own bathroom. Downstairs there are two other rooms and one full bath that are both being proposed as bedrooms one clearly has to be the owners. It makes sense to me because of the layout that the owner you know has to have their own bathroom and not sharing it with a guest so it seems to me that that leaves one bedroom downstairs with no bathroom unless they run upstairs to share and PAT MOORE : Yea this is more operational and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I think frankly the layout is fine for three guest bedrooms. If it works out if it’s approved and it works out and there is you know perhaps thought of an additional you know bathroom being built the applicant should it be okay if with the decision always has the option of coming back for an additional bedroom. Right now as it works the layout works for a three bedroom in my opinion that would also reduce the number of cars required on site. They did layout you know extra graveled area but I think that would also reduce the number of guests possibly and may create a little bit less traffic so I wanted to bring that up because PAT MOORE : Thank you I appreciate you discussing it on the record that way my client can consider it rather than CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m sorry you have to come to the PAT MOORE : (Talking to her client) Are you comfortable that if the Board were to grant three bedrooms that would for now I mean if it works out and you end up later modifying and you ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting want to come in for one of the other bedrooms you always have the right to come in for that application for that individual. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Renee would you RENEE MURRAY : Yes Renee. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so that was affirmative in other words. PAT MOORE : Yes that was an affirmative that would work for her for the time being. (Talking with her client) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright then let’s look at another thing that was the subject of considerable discussion. You address it in your memorandum Pat there apparently was a signed C&R with some limitations of beach access among the neighbors. PAT MOORE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the question then is, is that a civil matter that the Board doesn’t deal with or is it possible to condition the B&B to reduce potential impacts on the privacy of neighbors so that guests do not have access to that neighborhood beach. PAT MOORE : As a lawyer because then I’ll ask you but the way that that access that limitation was imposed Mr. O’Hagen was the one who well let me start off there was a right of way for beach access. The family that was the property owner that had the right of way that it was subject to a right of way was preventing or not giving consent for an application to be filed for beach access so therefore the D.E.C. application, Trustees application was difficult to obtain so Mr. O’Hagen took the matter under his belt and in order to have the property owner not the neighbors but the property owner that had the right of way accept the particular staircase was to put that condition on short term rental. That definition I think civilly and arguably does not has no relationship to a B&B. It would be the short term rental that we are discussing now with regulations and whether it’s allowed or not allowed and you know the fifteen day maximum. So I’m a little I would prefer that the Zoning Board leave those civil matters to the owners to resolve because since that covenant was filed the property was sold so the objections by the particular property owner were are not the same owner that would be dealt with the particular owner there who may have no issues with the fact and recognize the fact that the staircase is something that the community has a right to use. If it was family using the bedrooms there would be absolutely no discussion. It seems to be a civil matter of just because you’re renting it’s a non-family member. They can’t use the access to me is not a legal criteria. That being said so my preference is let it leave it to a civil matter because each of them as the properties exchange and sell and so on the philosophy of the individual owners may change completely. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting You could end up with three B&B’s on this block you just never know so that’s my position. If it’s something that’s acceptable with the owners again civilly that can be something that can be worked out among the neighbors. I always hesitate to have the town get involved in those kind of conditions cause now the town will be called oh so and so is on the beach and they’re not supposed to be there and now we’ve become the enforcer of private covenants so I’m as a matter of good public policy you should stay out of private covenants. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to address it in the record I addressed your memorandum of law and you know I think that was the neighbors had some concerns about PAT MOORE : I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : strangers coming and going and using their what they consider to be their beach. PAT MOORE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Legally or otherwise but now let me ask another one as long as you’re up there Ms. Murray. Okay we have your driver’s license now there was a little there was some concern again about occupancy are you now fully and only occupying that house? RENEE MURRAY : Yes as well as my husband. We both live there and we fully occupy the home and like I said the last time it is my home and we love our home. You know we only make it better every year we keep up the maintenance, we you know it’s a beautiful place to live. It’s quiet, peaceful, and tranquil and that’s how we plan on keeping it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you’re both full time occupants of that property? MR. MURRAY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any other residence? MS. MURRAY : I have a residence that is in contract for sale in Queens from when I was working in Manhattan and cross my fingers the sale goes through and I can move on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if the Board has any other questions. Ken do you have any questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No I’m in favor of the three bedrooms I think what you said makes a lot of sense because there’s only one bedroom I mean one bathroom downstairs and I think I would have to agree with Ms. Moore about the civil issues. I think the neighborhood can you know take care of those issues of beach access the town should not get involved. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any comments or questions of either Pat or MEMBER DANTES : Sure who owns the actual staircase to the access to the beach? PAT MOORE : Do we know? RENEE MURRAY : Yea we created that association so that MEMBER DANTES : But does that association own it is that like a RENEE MURRAY : No personally for homeowners we split the cost of moving Peter and Grace Gorman’s private stairwell from their lot we had to have one of the a builder out here move the structure over to the easement because Mr. Gorman didn’t want to look at two staircases at the end of the bluff so he was calling all the shots so we had to pay Mr. Gorman I think he wanted $15,000 for his old structure staircase and then we had to pay the contractor a big sum of money to actually move it and pray it didn’t fall apart during the moving process so my husband and I (inaudible) they live next door to us, Kougentakis and Nick and Shirley Karras who no longer live there any longer so four we divided it by four just to get the cost done cause that’s kind of how we work on the block we all pitch in so when the insurance is due for the road or the stairwell we all just kind of email each other and pitch in. There’s no MEMBER DANTES : But it’s located on an easement that all the property owners have access to but it’s owned by this Mr. Gorman’s property? RENEE MURRAY : The Gorman’s moved so there is a new owner on the waterfront now so that’s essentially on his portion of the easement but the new owner who bought from the Gormans now becomes his cause with the sale of the home MEMBER DANTES : Right. RENEE MURRAY : We all split it as neighbors. MEMBER DANTES : Yea I also agree with Ken on (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don’t have to state a position at the moment we’ll deliberate but I just want to make sure you have all your questions answered that’s all Gerry anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I have no questions at this time. I do agree also that’s it’s probably a civil matter and it appears that you’re working everything out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George anything? MEMBER HORNING : No questions. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Alright who is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address this? DAVID LENO : Good morning madam chairperson members of the Board. My name is David Leno. I’m from the law firm of Rifkin & Radler 926 RX Plaza Uniondale New York. I understand this is a continuation so I will not rehash what was brought up at the first hearing but just as a couple of points number one with regard to the memorandum of law that was just submitted we would kindly request the courtesy of the Board to keep the record open so that we can prepare a response before the Special Meeting. I know this was just handed to me this morning so we really need some opportunity to take a look at and gather an understanding on it. Without suggesting that testimony that was provided prior was untrue we’d also request the Board to request a copy of the license from Mr. O’Hagen with regard to his residence because he’s the applicant here. I understand that they’re married or that statement was made I’m not suggesting what she said was not true but since the applicant is Mr. O’Hagen it’s only proper that the driver’s license of Mr. O’Hagen be submitted for proof of residency. With regard to the stairs the easement property I’m here today on behalf of the Kuehn family, the Eskinder family, the Loufouchi family and the Kougentakis family. So in this cul de sac with six families four of them we represent are in opposition to the application. The fifth one the other property is subject to a matter now where there is questionable residential activity taking place and so these four homeowners are already burdened with a problem in their small community as it is. I understand from the vernacular that counsel for the applicant suggested that this is a residential use when the term commercial is used for this use we mean it in more of a colloquial term. They’re accepting money for providing services at their home whether you want to call them residential services or what have you it’s still a monetary transaction that’s taking place for space in their home so it’s not the expectation of this being a normal and customary residential use I think is an inference said takes a bit of a jump. With regard to the private road clearly the private road there’s no right to park on it. It is a gravel road while it is a thirty foot right of way it’s our contention that the actual roadway itself is a lot less than that. I think from the pictures that Ms. Moore provided to you you’ll see one that has a picture of a truck I believe it’s a landscaping truck that is pulled off to the side of the road. If you compare it to the road itself you can see that the width of it is equal roughly equal to the gravel portion of the road. Our clients concern is obviously if you increase the amount of people that are going to be visiting the site you’re going to be increasing traffic. That’s going to have an impact in several ways. Number one the maintenance requirements for that road and the expenses of that road are going to go up, number two I’m not certain with the increased activity at the site if you have fire apparatus or other trucks that need to get to the site in the event of an emergency that it’s going to be able to hold that capacity with regard to a fire truck coming to this site. Those are legitimate safety concerns that our client has with regard to increasing traffic flow and ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting increasing density in the development. Also the liability a question was offered by the Board with regard to the stairs. The stairs that property is owned by the Eskendar family they’re the ones that bought that property. They own that property and they own it subject to the covenant. When they bought their property their expectation was clearly that that stairs was going to be used by their neighbors not by outsiders, not by people that are paying to use the house whether you call that a residential purpose or not that was the understanding and I understand the Board’s comments with regard to not wanting to get involved in a civil matter but when you when the applicant brings this application and offers review of the property in this situation it’s incumbent on this Board to take into consideration factors that impact it. This is a covenant that runs with the land. This was signed by the applicant. The applicant knew what they were signing they signed it they agreed to a set of rules now they’re asking this Board for consideration on an application and asking you to obviate any reference to that agreement. That’s not fair. I mean if the Board does so is so inclined to grant this application there’s no question it should be conditioned on the applicant living up to their obligations under the easement that’s recorded and runs with the land. They signed it so there’s no question that they didn’t know about it or didn’t understand it. It’s clearly something that the Board should and rightfully condition as part of the application. Excuse me for a second. In addition because the property that’s the subject of the stairs is owned by the Eskendar family there’s going to be an increase in usage this proportionately by one member of the group there’s going to be liability that’s going to be potential liability that’s going to be felt by the Eskendar family specifically as the owner of that property as well as the whole group. Now the problem is when you have a group setting like this where the neighbors agreed amongst themselves this Board should respect that and should say this applicant coming before us looking for relief should be bound by the obligations that they signed in writing that have been recorded as covenants against the property and that others that have come to the site since that happened who have bought their properties in reliance on it this is you know this modification of use dictates that you should be involved to the degree that they should live up to their obligations that’s what it comes down to. With regard to let’s see its clear from the site plan that the applicant has made attempts to improve the site has made attempts to address the parking if this Board does so deem this application to approve we would number one make sure we would ask as a condition for that approval to make sure that there is no off street parking allowed by this venture and also to make sure that any spots that are located on the site are legal with regards to the building code. I have Mr. Kuehn here who I’m going to ask to address the Board. MR. KUEHN : Good morning. I’ll make this brief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just state and spell your name for the record please. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MR. KUEHN : It’s Robert Kuehn. We purchased the Karras house just over three years ago and we’re very familiar with the situation regarding the covenant and the easement. I would only reiterate what Mr. Leno said about the stairway and the covenant that applies to it. This is a matter that does run with the land. It is filed it does show up on your title search therefore people who are purchasing the property do have a reasonable expectation that this covenant is valid and enforceable. To not consider that in the granting of an application will beg a civil matter. I’m sure that will result in a lot of noise for the Town as well as expense for the neighbors so I would just again ask that you consider that in your deliberations. We have found the O’Hagens to be very responsible neighbors. We do not question their intent as to how they’re going to run their home. We just wish to make sure that it is done in a reasonable manner in the spirit of the easement and the covenant. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Kuehn you’re an attorney right? MR. KUEHN : I am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I thought so. Now we have two. So three actually (inaudible) you’re not going to want to answer my question but they might. Are you aware of any you’re actually asking this Board to interpret and apply a C&R which is as you all know we all know a civil matter and I raised it because I understand it’s the concerns that people have and we’ve heard one side are you aware of any case law that’s out there at all in which a Zoning Board has applied a C&R in a determination as a condition? MR. KUEHN : Well I have to confess my area of practice is far from what we’re doing today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe Mr. Leno knows is there anything that you’re aware of? MR. LENO : Off the top of my head no and that’s one of the reasons why for the extension of time to submit a response to the memorandum of law that was provided today we would gladly address that but I will say that as far as any zoning application when there’s a disclosure made to the Board they are asked the applicant is asked to list any covenants, restrictions, easements. The reason why that is done is if there was a covenant in place a deed covenant that prevented a particular type of use you know it would be disingenuous for that applicant knowing that the covenant exists to bring an application that was contrary to it. That’s why as far as in general having the town decide this issue I can understand that you don’t want to decide a civil issue with regard to this matter in general so that’s why when there was a violation of this covenant based on previous renters of the property there was no call made to the town at that point. However when an applicant brings an application before a Board and part of the application is a proposed use that flies contrary in part to a covenant that was recorded and signed by that very applicant that is an issue that we that is an issue that I think is ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting right for the Board to say we want to make sure you don’t have to rule on the covenant itself but condition them that they will abide by the terms of that covenant. That’s what it comes down to and the only reason why that’s being asked and the reason why it may be particularly relevant here is the fact that the applicant has posted ads for the site ads renting the site previously that advertised access to the beach and you know the stairs so we are concerned that by them expanding the use at the site expanding the residential use if you will at the site that it will be more people and knowing the previous history and knowing that this Board has the right to apply reasonable conditions to an approval that’s why we’re asking you to make sure that that is enforced in this case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well clearly I’m Pat did you want to make a we will I think the Board will agree with me that we will adjourn to the Special because it is a matter of courtesy that your memorandum PAT MOORE : That’s fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Also we just got it very you know I mean I’ve read it and I’m sure the rest of the Board has but we need to probably digest it a little bit more anyway so go ahead. PAT MOORE : If I could address the different points. The first one being that with respect to Mr. O’Hagens license it’s in your record. He submitted it because he was the title owner on the property and the applicant. He provided a copy of his driver’s license as part of the application process to prove that he is this is his principal residence. It should be in your file. If you don’t find it please let us know because my client says that it was submitted as part of the application packet. The second issue and you can see from or you can hear from the testimony and the dispute regarding stairs and use of stairs the last thing code enforcement needs is to have everyone on that neighborhood be call the code enforcement to enforce a condition of this B&B with respect to who’s using the stairs and who isn’t and whether or not it’s one of my clients guest or is it a guest of one of the other homes. We can get into the you can put yourself in the middle of what will become just harassment particularly for code enforcement they have plenty to do enforcing our own zoning codes rather than enforcing private covenants and the reason that you don’t have case law on the Zoning Board enforcing private covenants is because as a matter of general zoning law Anderson on Zoning one of the first paragraphs it gives on private covenants that private covenants are not enforced by the Town. It is a private covenant. With respect to also whether it’s related to this B&B the B&B use and the use of the beach are completely unrelated issues. There are particular standards that a B&B use has to abide by. She has addressed every one of the standards and that ends it. We don’t need to go into extraneous or irrelevant issues. Also my client tells me and she can be the one to if you need it to be a testimony when they were advertising the access the beach access at that time ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting it was as through the short term rental process. They actually had an agreement with Mr. Petros to use their private stairs. In 2009 that access the beach access that is presently there was not constructed so they are raising advertising on a staircase that had that was not even there so there is confusion of the facts and we want to make clear that any advertisement of beach access was a private agreement with Mr. Petros again prior to the construction of these stairs. There is again the issue of I don’t want to get into the whole issue of the covenants or enforcement of the covenants I think you’ve heard enough particularly when you hear from the other side what they’re arguments would be again it’s a civil matter. If they want to bring a civil suit sorry bring it on. I think that there is adequate interpretation going on the opposite from their position. With respect to the private road it is by way of the subdivision approval a thirty foot right of way. What they see as far as parking goes is every homeowner on this block has a landscaper. Every landscaper parks along the right of way in fact one of the photographs that I have shows one of the landscape trucks that was being that was servicing one of the properties to the north. Again the right of way has no restrictions one way or another it’s your job and the applicant’s job to provide adequate on-site parking. That has been provided. Again because they live there, because they know how to manage properties if people are parking within the right of way they will politely direct them to their parking space. Why would they park in the right of way that’s pretty far to walk a hundred and twenty feet or a hundred and twenty the distance to the front door in fact the closest parking to the house is for the guests and their private parking is the furthest away from the house so most people park as close as possible to the door if not on the door as possible. In addition the roadway was approved through the D.O.T. process, the subdivision process. This road actually got more review and approval because it went through two subdivision applications that most of the private roads in this town that predate the subdivision or are from the 1930’s subdivision so there’s no issue of the adequacy of the road. In fact my client actually called and asked the fire marshal to do a pre- application inspection to be sure that the house has all proper safety features. The fire marshal looked at the house, looks at the access, had no concern whatsoever with respect to fire safety. So that is those red herrings that lawyers like to bring up but it’s really not an issue here. With respect also to the colloquialism with respect to commercial use I would remind the Board that when and I am old enough I guess now that I know how this legislation came in to being when the B&B legislation came in the reason that you don’t allow apartments and a B&B both on the same property is because you don’t want to commercialize the property. That was a specific provision and it was related to an application for a B&B right across from my house where they have an apartment, they had a B&B the guy wanted to do marine tours and so on and the Board realized hey you know you’re really turning your property into a commercial enterprise. We don’t have a problem with B&B’s in fact I did the first application for a B&B before the code was in when Michael Herbert came in for a B&B as you recall and the code did not have that provision there was no legislation for B&B’s and the code was changed and added because it ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting was a use variance and that use variance was denied because it just wasn’t in the code that had since been cleaned up so from the 80’s flashback. Anyway I think that we’ve addressed all the issues we have anything else that I didn’t mention? If you have any other questions you can certainly contact me and we’ll submit whatever you need in writing but we hope that you’ll approve this application as you stated that one way to mitigate the concern by neighbors is to limit the number of rooms to begin with to give the neighborhood an opportunity to realize that a B&B is not the world is not going to crash in. It’s a very quiet use, people that use B&B’s tend to be respectful and for the most part you know very good welcomed people to the community. So I think that’s all I have and again I guess you’ll have to adjourn for any written CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I’m going to if you’d like to make one final comment we will MEMBER DANTES : Leslie I’ll verify that I do have a copy of James O’Hagen’s driver’s license in front of me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have one in my file we all do we have and it does have that address on Windward. DAVID LENO : Thank you. Not taking up too much of the Board’s time one or two brief comments just to close on. With regard to the advertising this Board was provided a copy of that advertising. I know applicant’s counsel might not of been privy to that but May 3 rd of 2016 a letter by Mr. Kuehn references an advertising that was on line as of May 2 nd 2016 by its own admission updated February 20 th 2016 that talks about the beach access so this is not something that was done years ago based on another access. The advertising was recent and the distances referenced the beach stairs that we’re talking about that are in question so I just wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding about that point. I have a copy of it in front of me I don’t know if the I assume the Board already has a copy of this if you’d like me to submit it I have no objection. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You might as well submit it. DAVID LENO : And just one further point again we understand that applicant’s counsel is making the argument that this is a residential use. We acknowledge what her line of thinking is but the point is when you have property that’s shared, when you have obligation for stairs, when you have insurance that is paid for by everyone and one of those members is making money off of that at the expense of the others without putting in additional capital without doing you know fulfilling their obligations under the covenant that makes it commercial. I mean it’s a money making opportunity that is going to be the detriment of others that are going to have increased exposure and risk without and paying the same amount that they always do even though they’re going to have an inordinate use by one of the members. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George it think you had a question. MEMBER HORNING : Yes, the access to the shore in discussion here is that posted is there any kind of notice there a sign that says anything? DAVID LENO : My client at the moment there is no sign. The prior owner the Gorman’s opted not to put a signage due to it being distasteful however the covenant specifically references that signage should be posted. MEMBER HORNING : Now this access the stairway is to a beach? DAVID LENO : Correct. MEMBER HORNING : Who owns the beach? DAVID LENO : That is private property owned by Alfred Eskinder. The easement consists of a thirty foot strip that goes from the toe of the bluff to the high water line so the five additional homes must share a thirty foot strip. MEMBER HORNING : So someone could they conceivably access that beach from somewhere else and they can swim or whatever since it’s you know from the high water mark down almost to the town? DAVID LENO : Well certainly. I mean it’s academic that properties on the waterfront if you are familiar with site plans run to the high water mark and that from the toe of the bluff to the high water mark is private property deeded as such. Is it possible for someone to take a swim on that beach sure they can access it from a quarter mile away, from a boat, from any other point of egress and they can wind up there that’s certainly a possibility. However in the specific place that we are we’re on a sixteen foot bluff and that bluff runs a considerable length so pedestrian traffic does not have very many ways to get down there so they are funneled to this stairwell and that’s why it’s a sensitive point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? RENE MURRAY : Hi I’m sorry I just I can’t sit down. I guess what’s happening here is the neighbors are taking our previous ad and now projecting that as a bed and breakfast we’re going to be sending people to the beach so with that I feel like they’re making an assumption based on old facts okay? Our neighbor has always our waterfront neighbor has always offered us use of his stairwell no matter what we’re friends. That’s how people if they want could get there. We’ve never endorsed as I said the last time really anyone that’s just an ad you can say anything in advertising previously I’ve always bought my guests beach passes for Southold Town and they can go all around to any beach they like and they also love going to Orient State ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting Park. Most people don’t even go down that beach. Furthermore my house is the second house in from the road. It has nothing to do with Mr. Kuehn’s house or the Kougentakis’s. Nobody they just turn into my driveway there’s no traffic down the rest of the road in fact I’ve never seen so much traffic on that road from everybody’s individual landscapers, service providers, maids you name it and they drive like thirty miles an hour down that road. I’m actually afraid pulling out of my driveway because of the service providers and all the people on that road that drive very extremely fast for that little bit of road. I actually go really slow to make sure that I don’t get hit because there’s new owners, there’s new people on the road. You don’t know who’s on the road and I feel like they’re turning this into a matter of who uses the staircase that we personally invested seven years trying to get so that it was a nice community that neighbors can go down to the beach just cause they weren’t looking over a bluff saying oh gee I wish I could get there I mean the beach is all pebbles. There’s nothing special about the beach. People want sandy beaches it’s just a way to go down there maybe have a glass of wine and watch the sunset and come back. There’s not that much activity on that beach. No one really stays and people that go to a bed and breakfast generally sleep and they go sightseeing all day long. There’s going to be no advertising on my part for a private beach and that’s what my plan for a bed and breakfast is. This is a bed and breakfast. They’re turning this into a matter of assuming all these people are going to be using this beach and it’s just not that way. My concern now is is he is Mr. Kuehn standing before everybody and saying he’ll turn this into a civil matter. Is he going to a police on patrol watching who comes and goes? That’s no way to live. You’re just putting yourself as a police officer in a home that you’re trying to enjoy you know go swim in your pool, go mow the lawn I don’t know. Go out go to a winery, go down the beach it’s a weekend community that’s supposed to be fun and enjoyable and if you’re just sitting there watching people and what everyone is doing it turns into misery and that’s not what the block is about. We don’t want that so I don’t know how who’s going to police this beach access but in my opinion it has nothing to do with my application for a bed and breakfast. Traffic doesn’t even go near his house. He’s two doors down and people that are coming to my house as a guest has no business going down to the end of the road anyhow so they just come and go off the main road one house in and I just have to say it because I feel like they just keep reiterating on an assumption so never assume. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. We’re all going to have ample opportunity to review everything and we will leave this open for written comments and I would ask Mr. Leno as a courtesy in your response to Ms. Moore’s memorandum of law did you give Pat did you give him one? PAT MOORE : Yes. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay would you kindly make sure that she also receives it and then you two can go back and forth or not accordingly as lawyers do and we will read all of it and if we have further questions we’ll take it from there if we don’t we’ll close the hearing and make a decision and we’ll do that at the Special Meeting. PAT MOORE : I just want to direct you to the subdivision map because that shows you how this access this right of way was created to the Long Island Sound you had some questions about you know the beach and it actually the right of way if fifteen on Gorman and fifteen feet on Peter Kougentakis so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have that in our files don’t we? PAT MOORE : I believe he submitted it but if not I mean you should have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have it. PAT MOORE : You should have a copy of the subdivision map. So that’s why again it’s such a contentious civil matter because it’s not clear if Kougentakis gives permission it’s on his property as well so that’s why it’s not such a simple black and white issue and I would prefer that we let the neighbors work it out for themselves. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright you’re ready everybody? I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on July 21 st subject to receipt of additional written comments 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 WIESMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6968 – WICKHAM ROAD, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Wickham Road, LLC #6968. This is a request for variance from Article X Section 280-45A&C(2) and the Building Inspector’s March 22, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to maintain an apartment 1) existing apartment without a principal use building located at 12800 NYS Route 25 in Mattituck. Hi state your name please. MARK STUFANO : Hi. Mark Stufano. I think I will be quite a bit less contentious than the last one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’ve gotten used to the fact that you never know what’s coming down the pike at these hearings. So we have an apartment on the subject property that was an accessory to a previous principal use which was destroyed by fire correct? MARK STUFANO : A big fire. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So now we have this apartment sitting there without a principal use. So tell us what you think should happen here or why. MARK STUFANO : Well I’ll give you a little history. I own and purchased the little building that I call the western front. It used to have the little western front and side the building directly next door 12850. My office is going to go there and had zero parking so when I met Steve Bush who was the prior owner for 12800 I saw his sign go up and I called my friend John and he said yes it’s going for sale. I have no parking and there’s parking directly next to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you we’re having trouble with the recording can you just be sure to try and speak into the mic. MARK STUFANO : Yes. What we’d like to do can you hear me what we’d like to do is not change the apartment at all not do anything to it just bring it up to running. When I filed the application for the grievance I thought hardship meant the fire that’s what the hardship was basically. It burnt down and now this tiny little building is sitting there doing nothing. What I was hoping and what I’ve learned since applying now is that my real grievance cause with the site plan trying to get site plan and what I have as proof is (inaudible away from mic) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait one second talk we’re recording it so just hand us up what you’d like us to read and then go back to the podium and explain it to us please. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MARK STUFANO : And what the seller had said he would do was support because he had the actual grievance from the fire support my site plan so I thought this is great so I hired a surveyor from Jamesport in I’m going to say April in the middle of July I still I’ve been strung along strung along strung along hadn’t gotten anything done I don’t know if anybody else has had problems with him he’s a very nice guy but he’s not a good surveyor and had to hire someone else well the seller Steve Bush got was getting antsy and said look I want to close and so I had a choice either close without his support for the building since I own directly next door and take a chance or not close and potentially lose the opportunity to buy the property and that’s I found out now after putting through the application. The real grievance was with the surveyor which I happen to get so we had closed on the property in September of last year and I just want to be able to bring that apartment back to life. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are your plans for the property? You obviously want to use it in part for parking I gather. MARK STUFANO : Well I need one spot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it’s a pretty large lot to what’s on it what have you had a chance to read a letter from the North Fork Environmental Council that we’ve received recently? MARK STUFANO : No I hadn’t. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright they are the neighbors I don’t know if there’s but they have some concerns about it about the apartment I’m going to ask you to testify in a minute MEMBER DANTES : Can I just ask the applicant a question? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea go ahead. MEMBER DANTES : So basically you’re saying is you own this property that’s your applying for the variance for and you own the property you just bought the property next door? MARK STUFANO : I had owned that first. MEMBER DANTES : You just bought this property? MARK STUFANO : Cause it came for sale. MEMBER DANTES : And you want to use this property as a parking lot for your property next door? MARK STUFANO : No not to support it just to put my car there. I’m a self-employed person so it wouldn’t be another business you know I’m not looking to have two businesses. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Right but you bought this property cause you want to use it for parking and because you’d like to get some rent (inaudible) MARK STUFANO : It would be a nice idea yes. MEMBER DANTES : But you’re not planning on building so then the apartment would become the principal use. MARK STUFANO : I would like to someday add to it but I’m not going to put a gun to my head and say I don’t think we need to build more in the Town of Southold it’s my personal opinion. I’ve been out here for eighteen years. MEMBER DANTES : No I mean just your plans as of now cause we don’t we can’t plan the future. MARK STUFANO : Yea all I’d like to do is use the office as my office be able to park my car there which really has no bearing and be able to have the apartment come back to life. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here’s the what the law says here’s what the code says that would be considered an it was considered an accessory to a principal use which was commercial. Accessories are not permitted without principal use. Now in the HB zone district which is where this is located residential uses are permitted but they must it must be a dwelling it has to be a principal use. A dwelling is defined as anything above and beyond 850 square feet and it has to be occupied by the owner. Accessory apartments in this two in accessory structures which is what this would be may only be occupied either by a member of the owner’s family but that’s almost always with a principal dwelling there or someone on the affordable housing registry. So this is a very odd situation because the Board cannot I don’t see how the Board can grant an accessory use without a principal use. So now I’m looking to see MEMBER DANTES : He can’t have a house in HB rented out? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can but it has to be a principal dwelling not an accessory. MARK STUFANO : I’d love some guidance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : According to the HB it’s supposed to be owner occupied. I mean I’ve got the code right here. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Do you know how many square feet? MARK STUFANO : I have it whatever is in there it’s not very large it’s one bedroom comfortable I would of killed for it when I was twenty years old. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHARIPERSON WEISMAN : Well we saw it we did inspection of the property we’ve seen the drawings and so forth I don’t even know exactly what the square footage is because the livable floor area has to be calculated by a licensed professional. This was well drawn and it was a scaled floor plan but it’s not stamped by either a surveyor or an architect or an engineer so I just looking at it it looks certainly less than 800 square feet. MARK STUFANO : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But even so it says permitted uses this is 280-45A the following are permitted uses blah, blah, blah this is in a hamlet business district 2A1 one family detached dwelling not to exceed one dwelling on each lot. The dwelling must be occupied by the owner of the property. So you know I was trying to figure out if it could become a principal use unless you want to live in it to make it bigger. MARK STUFANO : My wife won’t be too happy about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s an unfortunate problem here with this it is a hardship in one sense but you bought the property knowing what the conditions were. MARK STUFANO : Yea I wonder if and again I’m not going to speculate you know if Steve Bush had stood here applying for my he would of gotten some benefits from the Board I guess because of his grievance and I couldn’t CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Possibly. MARK STUFANO : Possibly no absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can’t say what the outcome would be. MARK STUFANO : Of course. I just wanted to put the use put the property to use in some way. I’m paying the taxes on it. It costs me there’s no gas, electric or water to the property right now. It’s all been shut off because of the fire. It would be nice to be able to do something I mean God knows about enough people I had to put up a fence you can’t imagine how many people go to park there. I was floored. I just assumed that somebody’s property you just don’t go on it. I was brought up that way. Well that went right out the window so I ended up putting up a fence. I had called the town and he said yea you could put up a fence so I put up the corral just to let people know it’s owned you know. Even then if I pulled the little chain down there’ll be six cars there on Saturday morning I kid you not I am floored. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : No I believe I’m not surprised at all. Well Love Lane is right there. It’s a very dangerous intersection very and coming in and out is really problematic. But having said that parking is a premium of course sell it to the Town as a municipal parking lot. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MARK STUFANO : I’m ready to put the little booth and go twenty dollars. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Could the structure be used for a commercial use? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It could yes it could be it doesn’t have to be an apartment but if it’s a permitted use it could be used as a business. MARK STUFANO : I actually thought about putting my office there and then rent the building but that wasn’t my intention you know what I mean. I set my little office up it’s just me and MEMBER HORNING : Sir where is your office on the east side of that? MARK STUFANO : Yes that little building. How would I from your guidance how would I go about making it a business use? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Decide what you want and rent it out as a business and go into the Building Department and you would probably have to then go to the Planning Board for site plan approval and you know you could put a business use there. That would be a principal use. We don’t even allow sheds on you know sometimes neighbors own two pieces of property adjacent to each other and their not merged as one they’re just two lots and they want to put up a shed on or a little swimming pool let’s say it’s not allowed. You have to have a principal use to do accessories. So yea you could change the use of that building. It might even be possible that if you put a business use on it then it may be able to become an accessory to that principal use. MARK STUFANO : Well I actually thought about merging I don’t want to do this but because when I read the code putting my building and putting a building between it but I don’t want to do that I don’t want to add more. (inaudible) live out here that’s how it is west trying to keep it open. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the thing is if you did merge the two lots and you have a business use you have a business office MARK STUFANO : It will be yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then it’s possible that you would have an accessory to that business use on one property. MARK STUFANO : It doesn’t have to be connected it doesn’t have to physically connected? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it doesn’t have to touch. MARK STUFANO : Ah. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does not have they can be two structures. I think that’s how it was before wasn’t it Gerry? That apartment was not ever attached to another building. MARK STUFANO : It looked from the old pictures it actually looks like it was attached yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was it? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Some were and some weren’t. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think they were separated but wait, wait, wait you got to speak in the mic. You know what let me do this now let me ask you to come forward because the counsel has submitted a letter with some concerns and perhaps you’d want to just put into the record what those were perhaps the property owner can you know SUSAN MCKENZIE : I’m Susan McKenzie. I’m on the board of the North Forth Environmental Council. We’re requesting that you deny the application because of all the reasons you just stated but the building there was a gap of about ten or twelve feet between Liberty Data which was a brick standing building and the apartment that was behind it and it’s been there for as long as I can remember. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to say what your concerns are or why? SUSAN MCKENZIE : The concerns is everything you stated which was you know you’re going change the use of the property I mean cause then he can turn around and build a residential apartment building if you’re saying to say that’s okay to be a rental property and it’s a residential rental property we’re concerned you know for all the reasons. If he submits a plan that states what he’s going to use the property for and then that gets approved for what the usage is then it could go back to being an accessory property that’s just our concern. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I think primarily the concern was vagueness just not thinking about how just looking at it from a short term perspective but our concern is that we don’t have a principal use and it’s (inaudible) that the accessory apartment in accessory structures are very very clear and they’re almost invariably not always but mostly the law was designed to permit garages, barns you know buildings that were on residential lots to be converted to rentals that were affordable in the town without building more structures or an aging individual who wants their adult kids to come live in the principal dwelling and then you move into the apartment that sort of thing. MARK STUFANO : My son would love that on the weekends but I’m not gonna CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that’s what that law was created for so there are real restrictions on it. You are permitted to have an accessory apartment in a principal dwelling as ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting part of that principal dwelling under certain circumstances and that may be rented to anybody but that’s a different section of the code. They used to be done by Special Exception permit the way an accessory apartment is in an accessory structure now but they are not as of right under certain circumstances and we tend to be dealing with these accessory apartments but they have to be accessory to something. So I think the best thing to do is just you know think about how you might want to utilize this property in a way that would give you meet your goals but that would also meet the code. A good place to start would be the Building Department who can advise you as to what’s you know what can go where and talk to the Planning MARK STUFANO : Yea I spoke to Damon and he told me you can build a 1300 square foot building on top of another 1300 square foot building and it’s accessory I’m like the last thing we need I just see it up the block they’re building four buildings and I’m like I don’t want that I you know want to see open space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well maybe you want to consider this as a commercial use convert it to sort of a store and rent it out. MARK STUFANO : And is there size limit for that that you would know of? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t know. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You have to refer to the code. I mean hamlet business has a goal that district you know to have business but it’s not open space so MARK STUFANO : No I understand that I mean you know what was there was you know I love her building the MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I mean you have the benefit of nice parking there which you testified MARK STUFANO : I’m ready to put horses there. It’s corralled already I mean thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address this application anything from the Board? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6965 – BILL LIVANOS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Bill Livanos #6965. Request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s February 23, 2016 amended March 24, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to demolish existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling and a new accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) proposed accessory in-ground swimming pool in location other than the code required rear yard or front yard on waterfront property, 2) proposed dwelling results in existing accessory shed in location other than rear yard or front yard on waterfront properties located at 1795 Central Drive (Summit Drive) in Mattituck. CHUCK THOMAS : Good morning my name is Chuck Thomas. I am the architect and the agent for Bill Livanos. We are seeking to construct a pool in a required front yard. This is a unique piece of property it does have two front yards Sound Beach Drive to the north and Central/Summit Drive which they merge together which is really their principal main entrance to the property. I have a picture from google maps showing the properties immediate to the east and to the west both have pools in their rear yards/front yards facing the Sound Beach Drive and I also have a copy of the Zoning Board Appeals decision ZBA #5861 that’s from 6/8/06 from a property three doors down granting essentially the same thing that we are looking for with our pool. I have a copy of that decision CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s great would you like to provide that for us please. CHUCK THOMAS : You can look at that as reference. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Didn’t we grant something up that way too not too long ago? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we did next door. It was in the dead of winter. As a matter of fact there’s another Livanos on the same street but way up on top of the hill that you can practically kill yourself coming down the steep part. CHUCK THOMAS : Any questions with the pool to discuss. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we’ve all done site inspections you know we’re familiar with the Captain Kidd Estates area anyway and it’s an inland bluff basically that you’re on top of so essentially that is what we would call a technical or architectural rear yard of the property. There are pools on either side as far as I know in precisely the same location and having a prior is very is you know is very good. The other variance is a technical one you know the new location of the dwelling which moves it actually farther away from the landward dune. You have a huge front yard anyway on the along the street which is a good thing just places this partially in the side yard the existing you’re not changing it you’re not moving it it’s staying CHUCK THOMAS : With respect to what? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The shed. CHUCK THOMAS : The shed, we’re not moving the shed. What we’re doing is we’re taking down the old house and constructing a new house. The new house will have a front porch so it will slightly increase the level of non-conformity but in the packets that I provided to the Board there are very clear pictures that demonstrate that the portion of the shed is already located in the required side yard so we’re requesting that the porch area which would project out another four feet that that is really in essence an increase in the level on non-conformity. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea I just wanted to ask a question. One of the real pluses of not touching the water is of course any erosion have you looked at the bluff at all to see if there’s any erosion on the bluff? I mean it’s totally fully CHUCK THOMAS : We have. It’s well it’s very hard to navigate these the property owners in this area quite a while ago constructed a very substantial poured concrete reinforced retaining wall that stabilized the upper portion of the bluff and it is you know and they did drainage control and (inaudible) and properly and it’s performing very, very well. I’ve walked up from Sound Beach Road and you really cannot get down from his property to the bluff. It doesn’t you know so the bluff is very stable it is very well vegetated and ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So in your opinion your client has no intention of cutting any trees or eliminating anything up there? CHUCK THOMAS : No sir. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just asked that question cause I’ve seen those things done. CHUCK THOMAS : There is just to I don’t like to offer more than there is a technical right of way for properties across the street of Central Drive that goes to the west side of his property that would allow those properties access down to Sound Beach. It is only ten feet wide. Mathematically it is impossible to do that descent with in ten feet. You would have to do so many switch backs because of the steepness of the bluff so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not going to happen. CHUCK THOMAS : Thank you it’s not going to happen. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have a question. Referring to your site plan/survey do you have a copy? CHUCK THOMAS : Yes I do. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Looking at the north side of the proposed dwelling that’s in heavy bold black right that you have your proposed house in. CHUCK THOMAS : The north side of the dwelling? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The footprint of it. CHUCK THOMAS : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Where it says porch is that old porch or new porch? CHUCK THOMAS : That is new porch. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That’s going to be new porch. CHUCK THOMAS : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Would that porch now place the proposed pool in a side yard location? CHUCK THOMAS : That is correct there’s 2.4 feet of the pool that clips a tiny corner of the pool that would kind of bring the pool into more of a courtyard effect that one corner of the pool would be in a technical side yard. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : As okay as well as the technical front yard. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHUCK THOMAS : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so you need a variance for that too I guess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not in the notice but basically we should mention it because it just says other than the required rear yard it doesn’t say front yard or side yard or anything it just says other than the rear so we just address both. CHUCK THOMAS : For clarity for the Board I shaded that area in red if anybody would like to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we can read the survey. CHUCK THOMAS : Okay I don’t mean to impose. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The proposed dwelling is in bold. CHUCK THOMAS : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And the existing is in dash. CHUCK THOMAS : Is dashed correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Thank you I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? MEMBER HORNING : I’ll ask one question. Since you’re demolishing the house, have you considered demolishing the shed and then you would not need the variance for it? CHUCK THOMAS : We were the shed’s been there we have the C.O. from 1975. They use the shed our hope would be to maintain the use of the shed. MEMBER HORNING : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anyone? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6969 – ROBERT and CHRISTINE HEMPEL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Next application before the Board is for Robert and Christine Hempel # 6969. This is a request for variances from Article XII Section 280-116A(1) and Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s May 11, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct a new roof over an “as built” front porch and new screened enclosures over existing rear deck attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) the proposed deck enclosure “as built” front porch with proposed roof is less than code required setback of 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet 3) less than the code required total side yard setback of 25 feet located at 160 Lakeview Terrace in East Marion. Hi Bob how are you would you please just state your name for the record. ROBERT BROWN : Robert Brown architect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so there’s two existing structures one on the front and one on the rear elevation. One’s a deck did you get the Soil and Water letter we just got it so you probably didn’t get it. ROBERT BROWN : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We need to make copies of that for Rob. So we’re looking at well they I’ll tell you what the comments were and we’ll give you a copy. They’re basically saying that the plan for the screened porch which is on top of the existing deck includes gutters and leaders and dry wells which will in fact will reduce the storm water runoff so that’s a good thing. They are recommending that you leave the block foundation in place and the existing deck footings so as to avoid land disturbance. ROBERT BROWN : Yes that’s our intention. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s your intent and also to cut the small trees on the bluff at the base of the tree and leave the roots in place so that in an event of a storm you’re not going to have soil disturbance by a tree uprooting and causing erosion bluff erosion. That’s standard. ROBERT BROWN : We’ve already notified the Trustees that we’re making that part of our application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good okay and last but not least the recommendation is to use hand construction rather than heavy equipment wherever possible to avoid soil disturbance. ROBERT BROWN : I think it’s impossible to get heavy equipment back there anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was going to say yea I’d like to see that happen. Maybe a very large crane is going over the top of the house. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That’s a large crane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s a large crane. So the existing deck which is sitting really on top of the bluff but does have a C.O. that’s and that went to Trustees also did it or are you applying to them? ROBERT BROWN : Yes we’ve made an application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so we usually go first and then they’ll yea this is simply going to be an enclosure of an existing deck that you’re going to renovate? ROBERT BROWN : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then the side yard setback is two feet for the as built front porch the code requires ten and there’s also a single side yard setback of 4.4 feet for the rear deck anyway there’s a combined of 6.4 the code requires 25 but these are all in place already these you’re not changing the footprint. ROBERT BROWN : It’s all existing construction we’re just putting some covers over them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The LWRP says it’s exempt for the side yard setback for the deck enclosure and inconsistent for the as built front porch and proposed construction. Basically he’s looking at new drainage designs for the residence. ROBERT BROWN : We’re showing new we’re showing drainage for all structures we’re showing drainage yes. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it’s going to just have to okay the whole site. Alright let’s see who’s got what. Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We had a letter from the Town Engineer requesting I guess a drainage plan or suggesting one rather and I guess that’s on your site plan right? ROBERT BROWN : It is on our site plan yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Has engineering had a chance to look at that site plan? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He should of seen it but MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But that is in fact I see zone one zone two zone three it’s your drainage plan? ROBERT BROWN : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so that takes care of this letter and LWRP let’s see setback requesting a setback from the top of the bluff line to the front porch is not showing on the plans the front porch meaning I guess the front of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I found the language of that a little confusing to be honest the LWRP report. The front porch is the entry the rear deck is the screened porch. ROBERT BROWN : Front is the street yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He’s using these terms porches MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Ah so well because maybe the survey indicates no it says the porch yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the front porch is really a portico it’s an entry right it’s not enclosed? ROBERT BROWN : Yes that’s correct just putting a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A roof over an existing platform ROBERT BROWN : Just so you can stand there and not being getting wet when you’re finding your keys that’s all. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : (inaudible) well certainly the front porch is existing the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : the deck. ROBERT BROWN : The deck is existing. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And this is just putting a roof over it basically just make it look nicer and it’ll be functional. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And then he also says inconsistencies because that a wetland permit for the front porch is not found in the town records well maybe he’s referring to the front deck? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He must be because there wouldn’t be there’s no porch it would be there yea I can’t quite fathom that but I’m sure by the time you know the engineer the drainage design is already on there and I think we can mitigate any impacts by Soil and Water recommendations. So we can make consistent MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The LWRP. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right any questions from anybody? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I’m done. MEMBER HORNING : When did the applicant purchase the property? I couldn’t find that on the property card. ROBERT BROWN : April of 2015. MEMBER HORNING : Okay recently. Thank you. 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. 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) ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6962 – NEIL and LORI KEARNS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Neil and Lori Kearns # 6962. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s April 5, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit for additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet and 2) less than the code required total side yard setback of 40 feet located at 18075 Soundview Avenue (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. Well that was convenient you’re the same person you were five minutes ago. ROBERT BROWN : Good morning Robert Brown architect. I appreciate whoever made the agenda thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we’re looking here do you have the LWRP on this too it’s exempt. ROBERT BROWN : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here’s a copy for you. So these are additions and alterations to an existing dwelling with a single side yard setback of 3.4 feet the code requiring 20 and a combined side yard setback of 14.8 code requires 40 feet. The D.E.C. has approved the application. Now I have a question here in the application it says the total side yard setback is 11.4 feet? ROBERT BROWN : That doesn’t sound right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Notice of Disapproval says 14.8 am I right or wrong on that? ROBERT BROWN : The Notice of Disapproval sounds more accurate. I’d have to take a look at that but If I could just give a brief overview of the project it might help put things in perspective. It’s an existing single family dwelling. We are adding a second floor and obviously changing the appearance of the structure. The east and west sides of the house are pre-existing non-conforming to the current side yard setback requirements. As part of the design we are asking to redo the roofs of those portions that are non-conforming. We’re keeping them one story but in order to blend in with the second story that we’re providing and the new design we’re just asking to reconfigure those roofs on the one story portions and there is a small portion in one of the non-conforming on the east side the non-conforming area we just want to extend a couple of feet to provide a mud room. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Towards the north right? ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting ROBERT BROWN : Towards the north yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I just have a comment with the plans they get very, very tiny and hard to see when they’re reduced to this size maybe in the future it would be to an advantage of all if we can have a blow up section of the pertinent part. ROBERT BROWN : Absolutely yea my bad I will. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That’s okay I really had to get my glasses and my magnifying glass. ROBERT BROWN : It’s not like we were trying to hide anything. CHAIRPERSOIN WEISMAN : Maybe that’s I don’t know well we have a larger we have the larger one that Building has but the submission in the packet is smaller. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea just the pertinent part. ROBERT BROWN : Yes absolutely my apologies that should have been taken care of. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So most of the new work on the second story will be (inaudible) setbacks? ROBERT BROWN : All of the new second story will be as of right in terms of the setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it’s just the first the one story addition. ROBERT BROWN : Yes the two one story wings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The house is set eschew it’s not really parallel to the property. ROBERT BROWN : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a question? Rob when I went there I did go to the rear yard which is truly magnificent but the site plan says proposed pool and a pool is there. I realize its conforming do they have a C.O. on the pool? ROBERT BROWN : Yea they do have a C.O. now they didn’t when the plans were prepared. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I see okay very nice, very nice. MEMBER DANTES : When you say the new second story addition will meet the conforming setbacks you mean it’ll meet both the combined forty foot setback side yard? ROBERT BROWN : Yes. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you’re stepping it way back from the ROBERT BROWN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay any questions George? MEMBER HORNING : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I just asked. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric or Ken any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Alright hearing no further questions I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision. 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 # 6966 – GABRIEL and KATHERINE ACRI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Gabriel and Katherine Acri # 6966. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s April 27, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 205 Knapp Place (aka 326 Knapp Place) in Greenport. MERYL KRAMER : Good morning Meryl Kramer agent for the owner. I have a couple of documents for you a tracking notice on one item that didn’t ever come through and so as you can see from the application materials that I submitted the existing house is located as many houses in this neighborhood are eschew from the property lines because of the way the property lines I guess were constructed originally prior to zoning code so we have a situation where the rear corner of the house is approximately five feet I’m sorry .5 feet from the property line and we are expanding the existing house by remaining keeping the existing footprint but making a second floor over the existing. We’re not expanding the footprint beyond what is already there and as you can also see from the survey that one point is the you know the worse case scenario and then as the rest of the house retreats from that we have much less of an issue in terms of side yard setback. As far as trying to create a different type of scenario where we wouldn’t have to go over the second floor I mean the second floor wouldn’t have to be directly located over the first floor was really not feasible to do so because of the configuration of the existing house, existing bedrooms and that’s really it’s a very straight forward addition and I’ll entertain any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The house next door we did as you know we always do the site inspections the house next door second story most of the houses are partially a second story already two story rather and the house the actual house on the property has a fence already in place along the property line and it’s adjacent to the neighbor’s driveway so even though it’s sitting very much on the property line on the corner there’s a quite substantial setback next house the house next door because of that existing driveway. It’s just you know this stuff happens in Greenport in particular on these small narrow lots long thin lots and again you’re right the actual property lines aren’t even parallel to the street it’s like a parallelogram they’re parallel to each other but not to the street or the so I don’t really have any questions about it Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Just to make a comment that it wouldn’t be feasible for first story addition because of the driveway so close to the dwelling. You’d have to remove the driveway if you were to do that correct? MERYL KRAMER : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea you mean on the other side the subject properties driveway. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : To not have to do a second story in such close proximity to the side yard to try to do a first story addition you’d have the driveway right there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that’s slam dunk up against the adjacent lot anyway you know it’s a tiny little lot. MERYL KRAMER : Well actually it’s a double. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a double lot 39 & 40. MERYL KRAMER : But we’re jammed up against the one side. The owner is also here if you have any questions Gabriel Acri. MEMBER HORNING : Meryl when was the house built approximately? MERYL KRAMER : I have to look at the property card. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to just come up to the mic please and state that and tell us your name. GABRIEL ACRI : Gabriel Acri my wife and I own the house. I’ve seen two dates 1906 and 1916 it’s rather old farm house. You know I’d just like to mention we were committed to try and keep the footprint so that was another reason why we didn’t want to expand into our own driveway as well. I can also offer I have two letters of support from my neighbors. My neighbor right next to us that who’s driveway is on the other side of our fence and my neighbor directly across the street from us if you guys want those I can CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure please do. Gerry, George questions? Okay anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6967 – ROBERT and BETH ELLIOTT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Robert and Beth Elliott # 6967. This is request for variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector’s March 17, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) proposed addition is less than the code required setback of 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) proposed addition exceeding 1,150 sq. ft. total building area as stated in condition no. 1 of the prior ZBA decision #5555 dated October 7, 2004 located at 275 West Road (adj. to Cutchogue Harbor) DOUG MCGAHAN : Hello again. My name is Doug McGahan I’m the contractor and agent for the Elliott’s. We were here last year and applied for a variance for a renovation and second floor addition to the secondary house on this property and you graciously approved our variance and we were basically buckling up our tool belts ready to start the job and Mrs. Elliott was concerned that one of the neighbors did voice some opposition to that proposal we had and then thought maybe it would be better to her intention is to get another bedroom for her expanding family and she thought maybe it would be better to just expand the original house and not supersize the secondary house to try and make it more in conformity with the rest of the houses in the neighborhood so I applied to the town for that addition to the main house and that’s when we learned about this condition number one from the variance of #5555 of ’04 which I built the house originally for the previous owner and I had no awareness of it either because it the permits were all handled by the architect and as far as the distance from the bluff I guess that’s a law or a new code that we weren’t aware of as well but our intended addition is nowhere near the bluff as toward the front of the house is so we’re asking for relief from that condition number one cause 1,150 square feet is pretty small footprint or a house in that neighborhood and again we were unaware of that and thought it would be more in conformity with the neighborhood to expand the existing house with just one more bedroom upstairs and a family room downstairs and then to the other dwelling on the property just do a small renovation to pretty up a little bit and maybe vault the living room ceiling but not do a second floor on that particular building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well okay I think some well what we’re looking at here is 60.2 foot bluff setback but that is actually LWRP consistent because it’s what is it a 283 square foot it’s ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting more than the allowed footprint by about 283 square feet I think. The existing house is 23 feet from the top of the bluff so this is well landward of what the existing house is. Now here’s the thing we gave you that decision about enlarging the let’s call it street cottage (inaudible) cottage at this point. They originally I guess were two cottages and the prior that was 5555 that condition this was 2004 the structures to no more than 1150 square feet was probably a recognition of the fact that that was a tear down of the original cottage and rebuild a new dwelling okay and with recognition that although they legally exist there are two dwellings on this lot and the code in general (inaudible loud buzzing noise) one dwelling a lot but they’re legally there they predate zoning so now the question is what are you going to do with that cottage? We have a decision that is good for three years. It goes away if you don’t enact it. The intent was not to continue to enlarge, enlarge, enlarge, enlarge because every time you do your increasing the non-conformity DOUG MCGAHAN : I understand that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : on the lot. How do you imagine we can then deal with the prior decision to make sure that if you go forward with the house we’ll call it the house renovation house additions how are we going to handle the cottage? DOUG MCGAHAN : You can make a stipulation in your decision that the second floor addition priorly approved would not be acceptable and we’re just going to modify what’s there with a small little what was it a bay window extension on the previous one and a little 5 foot by 8 foot foundation for the bathroom but no second floor just pretty up the cottage what we’re going to call a cottage pretty it up some new windows and the existing ceiling living room we’re going to vault that but it’s all going to still be one single floor no second floor addition to keep it the smaller size structure the way it is today. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Is the cottage going to be heated? DOUG MCGAHAN : They’re both heated structures. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They’re both occupied year round? DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes they are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is one rented or is it all the family? DOUG MCGAHAN : No it’s all by one family Mrs. Elliott and her family she’s here to speak as well. There’s no intent to rent either structure. MEMBER HORNING : The proposed addition is two story? ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes it is. The house is two story and this is a proposed two story addition 18 foot by 15.75 feet yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have to do that by a resolution if we were going to do cause it was a determination alright I wouldn’t put it down as a condition I think we put it down as a resolution within the determination for this application yea we would rescind the details on the cottage we’ll call it permitting minor renovations. DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes just not doing a second floor addition on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rescinding the second story. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We can state what those renovations are okay just say new windows and vaulted ceilings MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did on the previous MEMBER DANTES : No can we just ask them to give us DOUG MCGAHAN : We can present you a new plan for the secondary cottage as to what we’re going to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be a good idea. So you can submit that to us so that we can stamp that as part of this one and it would then be an amended decision to the prior. DOUG MCGAHAN : It’s really Mrs. Elliott’s intention to keep the neighbors as happy as possible and that’s why she didn’t want to you know make a much larger house out of the cottage because up and down that road there are each a lot of the houses do have secondary houses some are two floors some are one floor but that’s the way they were back then but we want to try and keep it as close to it is now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the neighbor who objected to the cottage expansion has also submitted a letter objecting to this one I think it part it may have to do with the assumption that it’s just going to keep growing and growing. DOUG MCGAHAN : Yea we didn’t get a copy of that letter. We’re unaware of that but that’s not our case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like a copy? DOUG MCGAHAN : Yea I’d like a copy of that. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you here to address this application? DOUG MCGAHAN : Well I hope I answered some of your questions it’s not our intention to do a second floor ISABEL WACKER : Yes I’m the neighbor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to talk to the Board you can’t talk to each other. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I just ask a question? One of the problems that I had was the calculation of lot coverage okay and apart from the construction and the stuff that wasn’t done last year and all that in general I still can’t believe that the lot coverage is 14% on this piece of property and all I was trying not for any critical reason or anything like that just to know what it was okay. In general in my particular opinion this is my particular opinion only the bluff area is not part of the buildable area because its forward of the house okay and that area was not necessarily taken into consideration by the Building Department so but I’m not raising an issue from that standpoint I mean the percentage should be higher than that of total lot coverage and that’s basically one of the areas that we look at in determining anything on these applications and but more importantly did you get a copy of the evaluation of the bluff from Soil and Water Conservation? DOUG MCGAHAN : No. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Could we give him a copy of that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea let’s do that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I need to run over that with you so that you understand what Soil and Water said regarding the bluff and they said it’s stable but they have certain things that they want to discuss. DOUG MCGAHAN : Alright yea we have no we’re not going anywhere near the bluff but whatever the requirements are we’re certainly willing to comply. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea I mean you’ve always been very helpful. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They’re pretty standard. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : They’re pretty standard but we just want to its talking about sprinkler systems and they (inaudible) tree removals CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s some erosion happening on the face of the bluff as a result of the sprinkler system in the rear yard that they’re suggesting be removed and that the you ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting know that area be watered by hand and only when absolutely necessary. There’s a pine tree in the easterly corner of the property on the bluff that they’re saying is a really potential problem for soil erosion, bluff erosion in the event of a storm. If that tree ever topples over and they recommend this all the time it will cause a lot of potential erosion you know the roots come out and then it sloughs off so they’re suggesting that you cut it down the base and leave the roots in so there’s no DOUG MCGAHAN : Whatever we have to do to comply with their requirements. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We just want you to review it so that you and maybe with your clients whatever and just to make sure CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re going to put that in the decision it mitigates any MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We just want you to say that you’ll comply you and your client will comply with DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re planning on gutters and leaders anyway aren’t you? DOUG MCGAHAN : Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We didn’t have them on the plans and they’re recommending two dry wells. DOUG MCGAHAN : The existing house has dry wells that these will be connected to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we’ll need to see that information. No heavy equipment within twenty five feet of the top of the bluff. Those are all ways of preventing possible bluff erosion. When you bring in the new plans for the cottage DOUG MCGAHAN : I will. I’ll have the architect draw that up right away. I think by the time of your next meeting I should have them for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good and then you know make sure we have that information on the plans. DOUG MCGAHAN : The information that you’re requesting is the cottage renovation plans and then the location of the dry wells? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The location of the dry wells if well we don’t let me just take a look. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting DOUG MCGAHAN : I have the site plan for the original construction of the main house which has a location of the dry wells on it which I don’t think I included in this package but I can certainly get it to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a pretty small addition but it does go we’re going to have to do something about the explaining why that limitation on the square footage has been you know kind of overlooked and I think maybe one of the things we should talk about is future plans on here so that we put an end to these renovations and DOUG MCGAHAN : This will be the final one that’s for sure. It’s either one or the other. If this variance doesn’t go through then we’re gonna continue with the previous plan but it was our intention to lessen the magnitude of this project by applying for this new variance. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Cutchogue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well seeing that that cottage is so close to the Mattituck Park District a second story is probably I’m sorry Cutchogue was probably more problematic in some ways than what’s being proposed now so okay MEMBER HORNING : Leslie I have a question regarding the previous project that you were approved for but you did not was that that was for the other building was it not? DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes it was going to the north yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But the let’s call it principal dwelling the one that’s before us now in decision 5555 it was determined in 2004 that that should be no greater than 1150 square foot footprint okay and MEMBER HORNING : Which building is that Leslie? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s the one that is by the water and because that one was torn down and rebuilt so there were limits on the size I think it was a reflection of the two existing structures two DOUG MCGAHAN : Yea that’s a very small footprint 1150 square feet especially considering the other houses in that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and again lot coverage is confusing but it hasn’t been noticed by the Building Department so DOUG MCGAHAN : it’s well below the limit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s certainly going to be below the 20% ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GEOHRINGER : There’s no question about I just wanted determine what the actual lot coverage was and that’s CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know I mean we got information from the architect but in some respects I think it confused us even more he spelled it out in so much detail that all we really want to know is what is the existing lot coverage or what is the proposed lot coverage. DOUG MCGAHAN : Well I have existing total lot coverage of 11.9% and the proposed total would be 14%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now but does that include additions to the cottage? DOUG MCGAHAN : It does not this you know obviously those small foundation additions it does include that yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does? DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so we’re looking at footprints adding up footprints. DOUG MCGAHAN : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you’re maintaining that existing is 11.9% and proposed is 14.6%? Is that right? DOUG MCGAHAN : 14% would be the proposed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 14 okay. Alright so that includes cottage renovations but the second story is not in play here anyway. DOUG MCGAHAN : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from anybody else up here at this point? Would you like to address the application? Just state your name please. ISABEL WACKER : Yes my name is Isabel Wacker my maiden name was Wise my house I bought the house across the street thirty years ago. First I want to thank you for your time and reading my letters. I’m a long, long term resident of Southold as my family and my husband’s family we appreciate all the work you do here. I’ve owned my house since 1986 when the house across the street was a little cottage on the road the north which I was under the impression was the primary house and I think (inaudible) at one point said it was he was the prior owner and the structure on the water was really a shed so when Bob wanted to renovate the house on the ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting water he we could understand it obviously you want the house on the water to be the nicest one but he specifically told me that he had to make a really tall house because he wasn’t allowed to expand it horizontally across the lot so he built a lovely tall house and I was left with still a sliver of a view of the water from my property. So when and I understand that there were a lot of variances granted to Bob and he talked to me a lot about it at the time and we didn’t object because we felt that he was going to do something that was reasonable so now that we’ve had new owners who I think either were or should have been aware of the restrictions on this property coming and asking for variances two years in a row it’s really concerned me and I’m surprised to hear that she was concerned about my objections cause I have never heard from her even though we get our registered letters you know whenever they apply for a variance so I don’t want to waste too much of your time but obviously I am concerned about lot coverage here. From a neighbors perspective the size of the lot I know from Building Department includes the beach but you don’t see the beach. All you see from the road and all you see from my house is the (inaudible) to the bluff and what you see are two substantial structures on it and basically cars parked in between so I know lot coverage goes on lot size but the reality of the size of the lot to the neighbors is substantially smaller and yes there are big houses being built all over the Southfork on big pieces of property. This is not a big piece of property. This is a small piece of property so I’m concerned about that. Quite honestly from my perspective I’d rather go back to plan A and see them expand the back house and leave the front house alone so that I at least still have you know my sliver of a water view as do the neighbors. I’ve lived in this neighborhood since I’ve been a baby in the summer and everybody walks around it’s a big walking neighborhood so given a choice between the two I’d rather go with last year’s plan because this year’s plan will be basically create a wall of a house in front of my house and I don’t know I just don’t think it’s fair to have one piece of property the subject of so many variances. This is not a family that’s been here fifty years that had a change in circumstances and doesn’t want to sell their family home because they need another bedroom. They bought a house that was too small for them and now they’re asking to expand it and get exceptions and this is near and dear to my heart cause I live in Park Slope Brooklyn in the winter and the interest in the Northfork has increased exponentially and they’re all looking for a deal and there’s lot of waterfront houses that need renovation and the most frequent question I’m asked is what can I do with it. I want to redo the house what can I build? It only has three bedrooms I need five so these questions are going to come up again and again and I think to grant variances of variances on a property that’s been the subject of variances for so many years is sending a really bad message to the buyers out there cause they’re looking of that 900,000 that million dollar waterfront house that they can build up and they’re going to be in front of you and I don’t know I just think that at some point you have to say enough is enough on a piece of property and I think if they want to go back to last year’s plan you granted that variance I objected but it’s less objectionable then this year’s plan to me because it will this is ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting just going to create a wall of house in front of my house and I thank you for your time and considering it. I hope you really will consider that lot coverage I don’t know maybe it’s legal but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s very legal 20% is what the code allows maximum and this is well below that. ISABEL WACKER : Yea right but part of it is the beach and nobody gets you can barely build stairs going down to the beach these days. So I hope you will consider the things I expressed in my letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we certainly will but I should tell you that the Board unless it’s a designated scenic view shed the Board does not have the authority to preserve the views from that neighbors have or don’t have that’s just not part of the standard. If like the 25 and 48 North Rd. those are all designated scenic byways and in that case view sheds are something that we have to maintain according to the LWRP but it’s unfortunate when this happens but it happens all the time when people want to build on a property that blocks a neighbors view or something they’ve gotten used to looking at but having heard what you just said and having heard the prior testimony that in fact the change in plan is in part motivated by a response to a sensitivity to your concerns let me ask them what their feeling is now having heard that you still want to go back to the cottage renovation or do you want to stick with what you’re now proposing and limit the expansion the cottage I’m asking that of either one of you. Thank you for your testimony. DOUG MCGAHAN : Could you repeat that question? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I mean one of the things you started out with was saying that in deference to character of the neighborhood and a concern from your neighbor about the impact of the cottage that we approved last year the second story and so on and so forth you’re now proposing to ditch that more or less and to add something to the we’ll call it water side the house. DOUG MCGAHAN : Right the house of last year was across the road and probably 200 feet from her house. The main house is another 150 feet away it’s not a big it’s not a block huge house in front of your house which I don’t know if you’ve ever stayed there cause I haven’t seen anybody ISABEL WACKER : I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whoa, whoa, whoa no you don’t talk to each other you have to talk to ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting DOUG MCGAHAN : I’m just saying it’s not a big block in front of your house that’s going to block your view I mean it’s an extension of the house but it’s certainly not right in front of your house. MEMBER DANTES : So what you’re saying is you’re not doing the new plan in deference to the neighbor you’re doing it because you think it’s a better plan. PATRICIA ELLIOTT : There’s many issues CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to state your name please. PATRICIA ELLIOTT : Oh sure I’m sorry Patricia Beth Elliott so there are many issues. One is that we feel that we want to keep the look of the property. We don’t want two big houses. I mean we never wanted that. We I have a son with two children and a wife so the idea is to build two rooms above the cottage. We tried to make it as minimal as possible like (machine is buzzing- inaudible) and when we got the final price it was pretty expensive and we just you know wanted to think about it a little bit longer and then my son and his wife had decided to buy a cottage in Jamesport so that made us think more about you know is it also worth putting the money in to the cottage. I have a daughter who is in a serious relationship and so you know it may be that she would live in the cottage and then to have one more room on the second floor of the main house made sense. We knew people looked at that house and they wouldn’t interested in buying it because it only had two bedrooms so in terms of marketability investment things like that although we plan to stay there so it’s not really you know turn around or anything we’re committed to this area and we want to make it look as nice as possible so there are some of the reasons that we were thinking of and you know I don’t I just want to comment that people have said that you live in a totally different location so you know I really want your property to sell cause I know you’ve had it on the market and it’s for rent now so I do we will clear part of the space so you will still have a view so we’ll keep that in mind. ISABLE WACKER : My house is not for sale and we do live on Old Pasture Rd now. We bought a three bedroom house and we’re going to sell West Rd. until we realized I too have two daughters in their twenties who are both now out of college and thankfully employed and they use my house on West Rd. My house is not for sale. I did rent it for about a year and a half cause we had a long term family in the neighborhood who needed to keep their daughter in the Mattituck school district and they needed a place to stay and as a favor to her I rented the house at a very reasonable price so she could keep her daughter in the school. But that’s all done but right now I’m not selling my house I’m keeping it for my family for my daughters and for the Wackers. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me put something out the variances are granted not based upon personalities. It’s not based on people. It’s based on the application not the applicant okay. You are entitled to do what is legal on your property and that is of no concern to us. We have standards variance relief standards that are State Statutes and local laws. We address them in our decisions they are not based upon how many kids you’ve got or what school district they are in or whether you’re renting or whether you live there full time or not. We attempt to do our utmost to make sure that the character of the neighborhood is respected because that’s one of the things we address. We look at the substantiality of the variances the percentage of relief from the code and what would mitigate it if it’s substantial. There are a range of things you know is it self-created all of these kinds of things so honestly the discussion that you just had is not relevant factually to our decision. Both Mrs. Elliott and your comments they’re simply not pertinent to our decision. ISABLE WACKER : Well that’s good I only wanted to respond to her. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand that’s why I allowed you to cause I understand you heard something that you disagreed with but these are they should be happening between the two of you can go outside and talk all you want. ISABLE WACKER : This is a surprise to me honestly I am in the neighborhood but I did want to ask one question because last summer I was told that a house that was built down farther on West Rd. they didn’t grant a variance because it would of blocked the neighbor’s view to the east and I guess that wasn’t correct so there are no instances where the blocking of a view comes into CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Only when it’s a scenic view shed and if in fact neighbors get together and discuss it and sometimes the property owner is willing to modify their plan if they can in order to accommodate the neighbors view that’s between neighbors we don’t do that we don’t design things. ISABLE WACKER : Well I can only reiterate my concern that given the two plans I would rather have last year’s plan than this year’s plan. I think it is less onerous from my point of view which okay I don’t have a protected view so maybe that doesn’t matter but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we’ve heard your concerns and we thank you for your time and your testimony. ISABLE WACKER : Thank you. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Can I ask a question? Going back to one of these prior variance granted that the number 5555 which involved (inaudible) and Elliott previous owners do you know what size the building was that was demolished? DOUG MCGAHAN : Yea I took it down myself the exact dimensions of it no I don’t have it but it was a single floor cottage I’d say it was probably 20 by 20. MEMBER HORNING : Approximately 20 by 20. DOUG MCGAHAN : Yea it was very small maybe 25 by 25 somewhere in there. MEMBER HORNING : So maybe 400 to 500 square foot. DOUG MCGAHAN : Yea. MEMBER HORNING : I’m trying to get at why the Zoning Board which I wasn’t on at the time would of limit it to 1,100 and something. DOUG MCGAHAN : I don’t know I mean it was about the size of the Pequash club which is right next to it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You know George what I think happens in general is very nice people like the neighbor come and they discuss the situation and you know the Board at that particular time said you know there’s got to be a max. okay ant the max. is what you know what was developed in 2000 DOUG MCGAHAN : 2004 MEMBER HORNING : 2004 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : 2004 right with Ruth and it might have been even been Ruth was (inaudible) which she injected in to that variance the restriction I mean. DOUG MCGAHAN : Who knows. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have all of those decisions in our packet all those priors are in here. MEMBER HORNING : Right but that doesn’t go into really the DOUG MCGAHAN : You need the minutes to figure out exactly what was said and why it was determined but it was so long ago. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : It doesn’t really say in the decision what the size of the original building to be demolished was for example. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it doesn’t. DOUG MCGAHAN : I will have the information you requested prior to next meeting. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Prior to the Special Meeting? DOUG MCGAHAN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so I’m going what I’m going to do is make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting to give you time to submit the changes in the plans for the cottage any other comments you want to make, anything else you’d like us to receive and if all is in order we will close the hearing at the Special Meeting in two weeks and then deliberate on the proposal. DOUG MCGAHAN : Okay very good thank you for your time. 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 # 6882 – ANTHONY and LISA SANNINO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Anthony and Lisa Sannino # 6882. This was re-opened by Board resolution on 5/5/2016 and I do not need to read the legal notice again as a result since it was re-opened but I will let everyone who’s here know that what had happened in the interim was that part of our determination on the Sannino ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting application was based upon the thought that they were able to possibly be conforming to the required ten acres by purchasing a minimum of 1.17 acres from some adjacent property. We subsequently got varying comments back and forth that were conflicting in nature and so we’re here today not because we’re real estate agents and we’re not about to try and evaluate the price of something but because we want to make sure that our determination was based upon accurate verifiable information. So having said that I’m sure there are many people who have comments and I’d like to let the applicant or the applicant’s agent make some comments to start. PAT MOORE : Good afternoon Board Patricia Moore on behalf of the Sanninos. First I have some paperwork for everybody. Let me address the Board with respect to the purpose of this hearing. Going back this Board adopted a resolution to rehear the appeal of Anthony and Lisa Sannino. It is our understanding that the Board acted in a reaction to a letter from the First Baptist Church of Cutchogue dated April 17 th and received by the Zoning Board on April 25 th of this year. I attached to the memo a copy of that letter. That letter accuses Mr. Sannino of giving false testimony and submitting false or misleading documents to the Board at a public hearing on this application. The church letter is liable less and defamatory and this Board accepted the accusations contained therein and refuse the Sannino’s an opportunity to respond and rebut this misinformation contained in the letter before the Board voted to rehear the appeal. In doing so the Board acted completely in complete disregard of the fundamental rights of due process and fairness of the Sannino’s and is now rehearing a decided matter. The Sannino appeal was the subject of a public hearing September 3 rd, November 5 th, February 18 th, March 3 rd and the church received notice of these hearing dates and chose not to attend or to participate in these hearings with the exception of the November 5 th hearing date in which time Reverend Fulford spoke favorably of the Sannino application and assured the church looked forward to working with them cooperatively. The Board’s decision in this appeal was filed in the office of the Town Clerk on March 22 nd. More than thirty days after the Board filed its decision and beyond the statute of limitations in which to challenge the Board’s grant of relief in the Sannino appeal the church letter to the Board dated stamped April 25 th seeks to annul the Board’s decision. The First Baptist Church now asks this Board to reverse its decision and deny the variance already granted when its proper recourse was to appeal a decision to the Supreme Court in an Article 78 proceeding. As a matter of law the Board should have rejected post public hearing evidence or accusations and demands that the Board reverse its decision. The church accuses Mr. Sannino of giving false testimony at a meeting which they admittedly did not attend. The church also acknowledges they have not read the transcript of the March 3 rd public hearing at which they wrongly accused Mr. Sannino of committing purgery. And this Board has compounded the fundamental unfairness to the Sannino’s by voting to rehear this appeal. The Board’s action is unprecedented and more importantly unfounded. If the Board proceeds with ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting this rehearing it does so over the objections of the Sanninos who preserve all their rights under the law notwithstanding their participation in this hearing. Hear the facts presented by Mr. Sannino. An offer was made on January 21 st 2016 to the church to purchase a small amount of unbuildable land. The one point we attached a copy of the offer that was made to the church the written offer. The 1.7 acres are unbuildable in the sense that it would be acreage taken from the church property and added to the Sannino property. It would not have the value of separate buildable property the Sannino’s offered $40,000 for the 1.17 acres for land that would be incorporated by a lot line change into the Sannino property. The offer was almost double the value of similarly unbuildable land. The offer also included having the Sannino’s incur all the expenses associated with the lot line change and even included an offer to reverse and undo the lot line change if the church needed the land for future use with the Sannino’s paying all of those costs as well. Lastly the offer included Mr. Sannino’s services as a construction project manager for the church the unfinished church building. The offer was presented to First Baptist Church January 25 th to Representative Kim Magill and the offer was declined by the representatives of the church as a subsequent meeting with Mr. Sannino. At a meeting between the church and the Sanninos on June 14 th they admitted having received the January offer and confirmed that it was rejected that’s the testimony that you got. Having rejected the offer not having attended the March 3 rd public hearing at which time the Sannino’s provided the sworn testimony describing the efforts to acquire adjoining property the church mistakenly relies upon a letter submitted by the Sanninos addressing the valuation of buildable two acre property on Alvah’s Lane. The realtor valued the Alvah’s Lane property as buildable land and at $73,000 per acre or $146,000 for the lot. That was the lot which the owner’s attorney advised this Board in the November public hearing could be obtained for $358,000 a price more than double the realtors value. The realtor’s valuation addressed a property that could be used for residential purposes. It did not value land such as the church’s which would simply be incorporated by a lot line change and which would not be separate buildable property. This misunderstanding this information and having wrongly accused the Sanninos of offering a price to the church below its value the Sannino’s offer was generous and it was rejected. The Sannino’s did not present false or misleading testimony or documents to this Board. In conclusion the Board erroneously voted to rehear this appeal in violation of fundamental due process and fairness rights to the Sanninos. The accusation of false testimony and documentation are demonstrably unfounded and there is no basis to rehear an appeal or to take another action other than to reaffirm the Board’s original decision and we attached to this the original letter from the Baptist Church which I would remind the Board in the communication they sent the Board presented to the other members this letter my client tried to rebut this because honestly post hearing correspondence is never accepted. In practicing for thirty years my efforts to submit additional testimony after a hearing and particularly after a decision has been rendered has been rejected and not accepted even for the file. So this was ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting unprecedented in the way it was handled. My client tried to stop this whole process by giving the Board a response so that we wouldn’t have to have this matter reopened. An alternative to this whole hearing would have been to give both parties whether it’s a hearing on whether to reopen not to immediately reopen this decision. Finally the third document is the letter that was given to the church by Anthony and Lisa Sannino as well as meeting with the church to try to clarify and clean up what was clearly a misunderstanding. It appears that they’ve relied on some information that was false but in the meantime slandered the client slandered somebody that I believe has been a reputable member of this community and it’s very distressful to have your reputation smeared because of some misunderstanding. We reserve our rights to respond but let’s hear what others have to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Someone else want to address the Board? LITHIA FORD : Good afternoon everyone my name is Lithia Ford. I am a trustee at the First Baptist Church of Cutchogue and we’re just here to listen in on what it is that you have to say with response to the letter that was just read to you. We were responding to information that we had received from a reliable source that the Sannino’s had presented to you that they had offered us a specific amount of money which we did not have on record and that’s why that was the purpose of writing the letter. It was told to us again like I said by a reliable source that they offered us $73,000 or whichever amount it was I don’t remember off the top of my head and we didn’t do that and the reason we wrote the letter is because we felt that the amount was misrepresented and that we were told that your decision was based on the fact that this amount was offered and it was reasonable and since we didn’t want it then you were going to go ahead and do it. We felt that you should know that we had not received that offer and that’s why we wrote the letter. We had no intent of stopping the Sannino’s from building their winery that is their prerogative but we do not want it to be where our name the First Baptist Church of Cutchogue is dragged in the mud because of a misunderstanding. Whether or not the reason why we did not write the Board a letter after meeting with the Sanninos is because after looking at all of the microfiche I personally did not see full accountability of all of the minutes of everything that was brought back and forth until Mr. Sannino brought it to us later and again we had to go by what it was that we were given. This is the information that we were given and we decided as a Board that we would go forward with what we did. So it wasn’t done maliciously. We said that to Mr. Sannino that it was not done maliciously it was just done to protect the interest of our church. CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Anyone else wanting to address the Board? We by the way just so you’re aware we do have information which is part of our record that Anthony submitted. Once we voted to reopen the hearing we took in all the information so we have you know this with colored lines showing yes and then we have the subsequent one we have subsequent letters ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting and so on and it’s all part of this file and essentially the whole purpose of doing this was because we wanted to make sure our determination was based upon accurate information so that’s why we’re here to day to just make sure that there were misunderstandings among people it’s time to just get passed it. We just want to make sure that our judgement was informed by proper information. Go ahead state your name please. FRANCIS SLEZAK : My name is Francis Slezak I live at 7405 Alvah’s Lane in Cutchogue and my property borders the Sannino’s lot one property on the northern boundary and on the western boundary. The northern boundary is 468 feet western boundary is 170 feet. Now I’m here as a concerned homeowner. I spoke before I presented to the Board a map showing Route 48 and Alvah’s Lane how so many homes on both properties would be affected adversely. Individually by the homeowners and by traffic going on Route 48 cars going to the Sannino projected winery would CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you just adjust the mic a little bit we’re trying we’re having a little difficulty picking up your testimony just talk a little bit more into the thing. FRANCIS SLEZAK : Thank you. My concern is that as a homeowner and community member and I feel that this particular lot and its configuration and its size is not appropriate for a winery and tasting room. It does not fit in with the harmony of the land. There are established homes on either side, there’s another church next door just different wants different needs. The church wants the people go to the church for their safe haven the people of Route 48 care about and Alvah’s care about the value of their home which would be depressed. The traffic coming on Route 48 going eastbound would have to turn to make a U-turn at Alvah’s Lane which is already a cross street so people going north and south would cross to enter they would have to merge with faster moving traffic which from the recycling center, from the ferry, from other wineries and slowly turn and then try to go into an exit. That’s a dangerous exit and entrance to go onto their property. That property should not be a winery and a tasting room it affects the homeowners on Alvah’s, it affects the people on Alvah’s on Route 48. I live with two borders. I know what it’s like to be disturbed by traffic. If you look at the map you might have the same map that I have that came in the mail if you look at the map if this whole process here allows this whole thing to be a winery I’ve already seen them having winery and B&B activities coordinated. This whole driveway has become a parking lot for one of their open houses. Cars trying to maneuver into my trees turning around backing up backwards onto the road I don’t even think they realize what was going on. One time one of their harvesting things one of their cars backed up into Alvah’s Lane a group of people got out they had a go cart they had a go cart with kids taking turns going back and forth. I got in my car and I left. I didn’t want to call the police because I’d be afraid I’d have retaliation cause they would know it was I who called. If these people ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well ma’am I can see that your distressed. I can see that you’re upset by this FRANCIS SLEZAK : If I feel that this whole thing this similar activities disturbances if this whole thing becomes a winery. I would like to also say I believe the Sannino’s had the opportunity to get another piece of land and they did not have to buy this piece of land. They had the option to consider themselves as a business as part of a community not to put themselves in the position that you’re going to challenge people and make them upset and change people’s lives and change the value of their homes. Existing land needs to be protected from overuse of its natural resource. That narrow road that they are using presently in the winter time it’s only fifteen feet wide snow piles up and they have to plow and all the snow piles up and the same thing could happen in the other area too and what happens is all the drainage goes onto my property it soaks in all the pesticide residue that comes from the spraying because the entrance road is also the spraying road goes into the soil into the groundwater. I’m looking at this as a whole total picture as a response to the community’s best needs not just mine which yes I am upset yes I admit that. My trees I don’t have a full buffer. My trees are probably being affected because they’re not acclimated to pesticide so I’m losing my view and they don’t have any trees on that side. They’re my trees that are dying. I think that to have a winery and tasting room is threatening the neighborhood owners it’s threatening our public roads and it just shouldn’t be. It think there are considerations that when you consider the special exception uses as Article XXVI it says it’s to assure compatibility with existing land use, patterns, community character and the natural environment before being permitted to come into existence to enable local officials to avoid negative consequences which sometimes arise from otherwise the lawful development of use of a particular site. Southold code 100-263 that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties. It will affect the church, it will affect the people living next door. That the safety, health, welfare and comfort and convenience of the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use in this location that’s 100- 263C, D-that the use can be in harmony with and promote the general purpose of the intended chapter, E-use will be compatible with the surroundings and the character of the neighborhood, invisibility, scale and overall appearance, F-the proposed structures, equipment and material shall be (inaudible) accessible for fire and police. Can the fire and police get up that road from Alvah’s Lane? I don’t know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mrs. Slezak first of all you have it written down and if you’d like to submit it to the Board. FRANCIS SLEZAK : I don’t have all of this written down I only have some of it. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to point out something. Today’s purpose was to determine whether or not the Sanninos were able to have exhausted all of their options on purchasing 1.17 acres or more. That’s why we’re here okay. The testimony you just gave you’re repeating from previous hearings. We’re not here to look at the impacts of the winery per say one way or the other we’re here to determine whether or not information we’ve received that we based our decision on was accurate. So if you are aware or would like to address or anyone else would whether or not the Sanninos exhausted all their options the church was one option it was not the only option. Pat perhaps you can shed some light on I don’t know I’m just asking or the Sanninos can on the purchasing of other adjacent lots okay because that’s what we’re looking at. There was more than one choice in terms of how to approach purchasing additional acreage and we’re here to decide whether or not all of those options were really exhausted and unsuccessful. FRANCIS SLEZAK : So we (inaudible) look at the total picture I see that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we are but we’ve already done a lot of that and we’ve already taken into consideration your current and your past statements too because you’ve submitted letters and we have your points of view on FRANCIS SLEZAK : I would like to make one more if I may CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely no problem I’d be happy to take it. FRANCIS SLEZAK : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re very welcome and thank you for your testimony. Pat. PAT MOORE : I believe that the last at the last hearing we had on the application Mr. Sannino showed you that colored rendering of all the properties that were available and the and his efforts to acquire the land so that was already part of the previous hearing nothing has changed since that date there’s been no offers or reasonably priced properties. My understanding of the letter you sent to the First Baptist Church was we were just addressing the issue with the church and what exactly to clarify what obviously was a misunderstanding and I think we’ve done that to both sides I hope to both sides satisfaction that there was no intention to slander the client just a complete misunderstanding on relying on a reliable source that obviously misunderstood testimony so I don’t know I think you might have something you want to say but I don’t want to open this into another hearing that’s not the purposes of what today’s hearing is about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it was not just in the Board’s mind today was not just to look at the possible purchase or not purchase of the church’s property. The church only spoke about its ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting own experiences with the real estate offers and so on and so forth. Our concern was that in our determination on town law 267 alright. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance and we said the applicant has exhausted all currently existing options to purchase at least 1.17 acres which is 51,052.2 square feet from an adjacent property owner. The church was one adjacent property owner. PAT MOORE : Well we already put down that the one property that was for sale was asking $358,000 which was about $100,000 more than the fair market value of the property. He contacted another owner a Greek gentleman and a neighboring property and that was not available, he contacted Gail Wickham and Gail Wickham was not interested in selling any property. Who’s left? Why don’t you come up and you put it on the record so that it exhausts oh Gail is here. ANTHONY SANNINO : Anthony Sannino applicant. The last property would be to the north of us the Keil nurseries they were not willing to do a lot line change or anything like that it belongs to a big I guess the family and they couldn’t divide that and that would be the last property that would be a possibility for purchase that doesn’t exist now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay because obviously what started out at the first hearing to be first of all clarifying the amount of acreage you needed in order to establish a winery which seemed to be in question and we work very hard with you in attempting to define what the might be I believe it was Reverend Fulford who indicated a willingness to sell some of the church property that clearly changed later on but we were assuming that you could be conforming based upon how we were defining conformity and then when we realized that we didn’t really know the outcome of your efforts to be conforming that’s when we asked you to come back and tell us. Just so everybody I’m trying to clear up this misunderstanding alright and based upon the information we received from the church well we wrote a decision at that point and it indicated you exhausted your options and then we thought maybe you didn’t because there were conflicting it was just conflicting information and we thought it was in the best interest of the community as well as sound decision making to investigate the veracity of the information that we had. We’re not you know going any farther than that that’s all we really wanted to do cause we received this other information. Is there anyone in the church who wants to say anything else who wants to clarify anything or tell us any more information or not. That’s fine you don’t have to I’m just giving you an opportunity to now that you’ve heard a little bit more to clarify things even more. LITHIA FORD : I did want to just clarify that yes we did receive the $40,000 offer from Mr. Sannino again the letter was written because we were under the impression that he told you ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting that he offered us more which he didn’t. So we wanted to make sure that you were aware that no we didn’t get offered more than that we only got offered what we did and that was it there was nothing else. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was your decision to reject the offer based upon price or some other consideration? LITHIA FORD : It was based upon price partly of course and also we had to consider the needs of the community and the needs of our church considering the fact that of course we are trying to build and you know considering the fact that we don’t know how much further we would have been able to get we had to look at what about our community and what is it that they want and from everyone that we understood was against it so at that point we had decided that if we’ve exhausted everything to where we felt that it wouldn’t benefit our church so to speak then we had to look out for or benefit for what the church is trying to do we have to also look out for our community and that’s why that decision was made. After the $40,000 there was nothing else after that until we started going through this process at which time we did submit a letter to him stating that we were willing to sell it and that we were going to ask we are asking for $200,000 with a couple of stipulations that there would be all of the fees paid for which is what he had stated prior and that a Sunday noise restriction because we are a church and to have a bunch music and everything while we’re in service is bad and again considering the needs or the wants of our surrounding neighbors and considering a lot of the things that have happened with other wineries and I’m not saying it’s going to happen with Sanninos but I know of other wineries where it started small but it got really big and really out of control so what’s going to happen at that point and that’s what our concern was that’s what our interest was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. ANTHONY SANNINO : So again Anthony Sannino applicant. I just want to thank the church and I look forward to actually working with you guys and honestly thank you for coming out and clarifying that’s all I wanted to say thank you. GAIL WICKHAM : Good afternoon my name is Abigail Wickham Old Pasture Road Cutchogue. I am here today as a neighbor of the Sanninos as my family owns a thirty three acres immediately to the west of his property and also borders the church property on the west. I thought the Board’s decision in this matter was well reason and I strongly urge you to maintain it and reaffirm it as quickly as possible. I do think the differential in acreage less than one acre is diminimus given that agricultural exemptions can be obtained for properties down to seven acres and because acreage density in the town code is based on 40,000 square feet not 43,560. I’m not asking the Board to make that interpretation but I’m rather mentioning it as illustrative of the fact that the production acreage which the Sanninos do have here meets the spirit and ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting intent of the code requirements on wineries. Regarding this particular hearing and its purpose I am here to tell the Board directly my involvement with the Sanninos attempt to acquire additional acreage and again I’m which that decision was partially based. Mr. Sannino called me at least three or four times during his process about making offers to obtain additional property and based on those conversations I am confident he made bona fide and reasonable efforts to do so and exhausted his efforts. At the very outset he called me to ask if he could acquire acreage from our parcel. I told him I was not in a position to sell or lease any property as it would adversely affect not only the overall parcel but Dave Steele’s farming operation which has been ongoing on it for decades. We then discussed both at that time and at least three or four times after that, other adjoining properties he might acquire. We discussed and it my strong opinion having practiced local real estate here for almost forty years that the price asked for the lot on Alvah’s Lane was far, far over market and certainly beyond the means of a farming operation land cost being absolutely critical as a farming enterprise knows. We also discussed on several occasions his inquiry and conversations with the church and the offer he had made. I’m sure he made every reasonable effort to deal with them fairly and I’m sure that had the church made had been able to go ahead at that point he would have been open to consideration. However at no time in our discussions did I get the impression that he had made a take it or leave it offer and he also explained to me the additional incentives he had provided to them in his offer. His inquiries to me and our conversations did make it clear that he was attempting to increase his acreage but was unable to secure any reasonable result. The price for an interior parcel such as what he and the church were discussing which cannot be used independently and would be restricted to agriculture would be far, far less a mere fraction of the value of a building lot and I think that that’s something the Board has had testimony on it at the prior hearings. Further from that you would have to include the cost of a lot line change which these days is as much in engineering, surveying and professional fees as a full subdivision so you’re looking at least ten or fifteen thousand in expenses. Having been told that the church was not in a position to sell at that time as they might have need for the property that sounded to me like a reasonable and expected response and I understand why it didn’t go further so I think his testimony at the prior hearing was accurate and you should rely on it. I can only assume that this recent discussion with the church was the result of misunderstanding they’re all very good people. I expect the Sanninos and they will be good neighbors and may in fact someday work together. Regarding the lady that just spoke they’re a couple of things I won’t address because it’s not as you mentioned appropriate to this hearing but I would mention that I am by far the largest land owner adjoining the Sannino property with the development potential far more for far more homes than those are now in the area and I have no problem with their application so I hope you can approve it and let them get under way. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you anything from the Board? ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything that anyone else would like to say. Okay hearing no further comments or questions I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Thank you all for coming have a good afternoon. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6946 – FRANK J. and ELIZABETH G. KELLY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is an application that was adjourned from April 21 at the Special Meeting this is Frank J. and Elizabeth G. Kelly # 6946. This particular related application is a request for a reversal of the restriction on the length of the watercraft permitted at the marina as listed in the PreCO # 38052 issued January 14, 2016 for property located at 1900 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. (adj. to Brushs Creek) in Laurel. So we started out with whether or not you needed site plan approval and we determined that if you got a PreCO you would not which you did obtain. DAN ROSS : Good afternoon yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that PreCO was for an eleven slip small watercraft marina which restricted the length of a watercraft to twenty feet. Is that correct? DAN ROSS : Yes. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay what would you like us to know? DAN ROSS : I want to start out on behalf of my clients in thanking the Board for the encouragement with respect to the PreCO. It was the right way to go. I’m here to speak in support of their application to strike the restriction as having no underlying basis I hope to be brief today. My client tells me that when the individual came to do the inspection he measured his boat my client’s boat is twenty one feet according to his registration and thereafter the PreCo was issued limiting the size of boats in the marina to twenty feet. I thought well maybe there had been some investigation because on the PreCO there is a reference you’ll see at the bottom to please see attached inspection report I made a freedom on information demand an d was told by Connie at the Building Department that there was no inspection report so the only thing there is in terms of the record is this PreCO and I suggest and urge the Board that there was no basis to restrict it to twenty feet and I’m asking the Board to strike that from the PreCO. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know there was some discussion with Gary Fish before he resigned from the Building Department about the length and twenty one feet was something you were looking at possibly? DAN ROSS : I made an effort with the town to resolve this before it went to hearing and we missed it by a few days. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would twenty one feet make you happy? DAN ROSS : Yes I had authority to settle that the matter at that. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Based on the registration boat registration is that right Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then it’s a legal document confirming the length if it’s the boat’s registration at twenty one feet then we know it’s legally twenty one. DAN ROSS : I was working out that the boat registration whatever boat it was would be the determining factor. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Boats are measured to ways. They’re measured by the manufacturer and that usually encompasses whatever is in front in the bow back to the stern but as we discussed in years gone by we have boats that now have these swim platforms and so on an so forth. I don’t know if that actually clearly depicts the length of the boat or not cause it makes the boat longer okay so all those situations that are sometimes a mystery. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting DAN ROSS : To eliminate the guess work we were discussing just using the registration and you’re right it doesn’t include the motor and a platform it probably wouldn’t include that but the boat’s registration would be the determining factor and that was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you got just so far and then Gary disappeared. I don’t know if the Board has much questions let’s see if there’s anyone in the audience who wants to address the application please come forward and state your name and spell it for us. JERRY MORRISSEY : Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Morrissey I live at 1780 Peconic Bay Blvd. right next to the Mr. Kelly’s lot and may I submit these to you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : May I just ask you a question Mr. Morrissey are you the gentleman that lives just up the hill? JERRY MORRISSEY : Yes. I live at the first house west of the lot. Two years ago Mr. Kelly moved into or purchased this lot from old Jim Murray Sr. MEMBER DANTES : Do have anything that talks about the boat length or JERRY MORRISSEY : Yes I’ll get to that if you look at one of those pictures the boat that he’s referring to was a pontoon boat which is registered not registered manufactured at 21.5 foot and if you also see in that picture you’ll see that’s parked diagonally why because it’s too long and it goes past the cable that is tied onto. Now I don’t know how many of the Board members reviewed this parcel of land or reviewed the physical out you know the physical attributes of the canal but everything east of the cable in the Brushs Creek it’s only 15 to 18 feet wide depending on where you measure from my neighbor Kathy who is behind me she’ll speak I’m sure after me. So the concern of us and the neighbors is if you allow any bigger boats for like I said that pontoon boat is 21.5 plus the outboard motor now the people who know the neighborhood know that that canal is used quite often probably close to a hundred kayakers and canoers and paddle boats and you name it they go through that canal into that underneath Peconic Bay Blvd’s bridge and goes into that nature preserve because of all the people that live north of Peconic Bay Blvd. So any boat larger than twenty foot which I understand Jim Murray Sr. had that for his local friends none of the boats were ever larger than nineteen or twenty feet mainly because the canal cannot handle anything of that weight or that length. There’s concern from my neighbors and I that the bulkhead across the way from his marina could easily be damaged by any larger boat especially if I’m an inexperienced boater. Now you’re talking about eleven slips for boats up to twenty one or twenty two feet I have no idea how they’re going to get out of that slip. You can see some of the pictures. The reason why I sent some I brought those pictures with me today because I want the Board members to know that for two years ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting this neighborhood has been enduring a lot of heartache, turmoil a lot of uneasiness. The community has suffered through cosmetically it has been a nightmare for us on Brushs Creek since Mr. Kelly has purchased this lot. It’s a .17 of an acre. He’s treating it like a Strong Marina. He’s treating it like he should have the privileges of a large marina that has twenty acres of land and is away from any residential neighborhood. Those pictures are just to show you some of the things that we have to be enduring. Now we understand that you the C. of O. that he was granted for twenty foot or less boats marine one so be it we’re willing to compromise. We’ve always said since the beginning we’ve been here before I’m sure a few of the people on the Board have recognized myself and my wife and my neighbors we don’t have a problem with him operating this as a marina one at twenty foot or less boats but you know and there’s evidence that if you give Mr. Kelly an inch he’s going to take a yard and so forth and so on. The community is entitled to maintain the value of their property, to maintain the neighborhood, to maintain the beauty of Southold and we all feel that we hope that you people of the Board ladies and gentlemen to agree with us and okay Mr. Kelly got what he wanted. He has his C. of O. which was pretty much granted to him by purchasing the lot from Jim Murray Jr. so we’re asking the Board please enough is enough. Mr. Kelly is going to continue to disrupt this neighborhood so not to allow him anymore further damage. Twenty foot is enough that’s all he needs it for that twenty one and a half foot boat that’s in the water right now that he put in on July 4 th is too big as it is as you can see by the picture it’s on a diagonal and the engine is down so it wouldn’t stick into the canal. If there’s any question about it anybody can drive park their car on the Peconic Bay bridge and take a picture and see that this canal does not warrant anything bigger than a twenty foot boat. I believe it should be smaller but you know it is what it is when it comes to that. So I ask please reconsider CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re talking about this first photograph is that the one that you’re referring to? JERRY MORRISSEY : Yes pontoon boat right here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright cause there’s another boat in here so JERRY MORRISSEY : There is that’s his other boat. Those are pictures of boats in the past which one of my neighbors (inaudible). Those boats all belong to neighbors that Mr. Murray Sr. allowed his friends to walk onto his property and take CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Back to the mic that’s because we’re recording It. JERRY MORRISSEY : I apologize. Those other pictures that one picture is yes that’s boats in the past two of those boats belong to the gentleman’s family that I bought the house from. Few of ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting the and two other boats belong to people that belonged I forgot the name of the street that’s behind Jim Murray Jr’s house. So MEMBER GOEHRINGER : North Oakwood. JERRY MORRISSEY : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is dated 7/7/16. JERRY MORRISSEY : Well that’s the date we made a copy of that and I sent it to Mr. Kiely’s office just to get it on record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is not current photo? JERRY MORRISSEY : No that was a picture back in ’91 I believe. My neighbor Kathy is going she’s been a local resident here for many, many years so she has more input than I do when it comes to the past. I’m pretty much referring to what we’ve had to endure within the past two years. What Mr. Kelly wants to continue on doing and what he has been doing and I think giving him a twenty foot maximum on his C. of O. is more than generous than we really want to give him but we all have to compromise in this world so alright. Thank you very much. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Leslie maybe we can find out how big that boat is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I was going to ask that question because I think we’re going to get testimony JERRY MORRISSEY : As for Jim Murray Jr. no boat ever was bigger than nineteen foot that was docked in that canal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So none of these are bigger than nineteen feet? JIM MORRISSEY : No because at low tide you’re only talking about a twelve inch clearance and a twenty two foot boat especially if it’s an io it can’t even operate in a creek. Brushs Creek hasn’t been dredged in who knows when at low tide it can’t even operate. There’s another picture in there that I showed you the boat ramp that Mr. Kelly and his attorney is going to say to you that well he wants to operate as a normal marina. That boat ramp is made out of wood. It’s a kayak row boat, paddle boat raft ramp. No way could it ever sustain a trailer with a boat on it to be lowered in to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this the one you’re referring to? ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting JERRY MORRISSEY : Correct. You can see that that has never been used as a per say boat ramp. The definition of that where boat ramp should be defined of what kind of boats, what size also at the peak of that ramp at low tide it’s only about eight inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me pass these down you guys take a look. JERRY MORRISSEY : Can I say one more thing on behalf of being neighborly. I advise everybody on this Board to check out Mr. Francis James Kelly’s Facebook page because you’re all on it and you’re all being threatened and called numerous words. So for Mr. the attorney to say to stand here with a straight face and on behalf of his client thank you all for consideration is a slap in the face. If you read his Facebook page he calls every one of you Board members names and liars so just to let you know on the reality of that. Thank you. MEMBER HORNING : Sir may I ask a question in your estimation and at a normal low tide are there any boats that are able to go in and out of that creek up to that you know facility? JERRY MORRISSEY : My boat is approximately fifty feet closer to the Peconic than that marina I cannot get out in low tide and I have a twenty one foot sea ray. MEMBER HORNING : So in essence then you have to be careful as to when you go boating? JERRY MORRISSEY : Yes sir and a twenty two foot boat you’re talking about the damage to the canal, the damage to the creek that the ramifications that a twenty two foot i o or outboard motor can do to a creek of that size which is probably one of the smallest creeks in Laurel could be very substantial. MEMBER HORNING : You could go out fishing in a high tide or something and then come back and not be able to get into your mooring? JERRY MORRISSEY : Correct. We have neighbors that if that happens to like for instance I can only speak for myself I usually put it out into the beach mooring it for a few hours until the tide comes in and then I walk down to my deeded beach and I drive it in afterwards. MEMBER HORNING : Is that type of situation somewhat typical of other places on Long Island? JERRY MORRISSEY : Not that I know of. Brushs Creek is the only one that I know that low tide comes into play and it affects the nature preserve that’s on the north side of the you know what I mean? MEMBER HORNING : Yes. JERRY MORRISSEY : Jamesport Marina doesn’t have that problem. Strong’s Marina doesn’t have that problem. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : I know there are marinas in Connecticut that have that problem and they have to rent out their slips that are reduced sometimes because JERRY MORRISSEY : Absolutely and like I said the if you read the past history and there are letters in the folders Jim Murray Sr. didn’t really rent them out he gave them to his friends and local people. There was never any cars in the parking lot. He allowed the people on the north side Peconic Bay that street that the gentleman just mentioned to walk over and just take out fifteen, eighteen center console Boston whalers. I just hope that the attorney and Mr. Kelly is trying to exaggerate this whole definition of Marine I marina so thank you. I’m sorry just one more thing. My wife was just reminding me if you allow the twenty two foot you’re allowing him to have eleven slips that’s eleven slips that has the potential of having twenty two foot boats on it I can’t see it happening physically, physically how is it going to happen? Thank you. KATHLEEN KNAPP : I’m Kathleen Knapp. I live east of this marina 2260 Peconic Bay. You all have a copy of this photograph that I gave to the do you recognize it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do from previous hearings. Do you all want to take a look at it again? KATHLEEN KNAPP : Take a look at it please. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don’t you bring it up and we’ll take a look at it again. MEMBER HORNING : We have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But I know we have it in the file. KATHLEEN KNAPP : I think at one of the hearings I’m not don’t recall exactly one of the Board members actually at one of the Board meetings one of the town meeting here one of the Board members actually leased or rented a slip from Murray Sr. and we had my husband and I had a motor boat when we first came to town I guess 19 years ago and it was such a headache that we went to a sail boat the McGregor that only drew eight inches of water that is how shallow and in that photograph even on the point of our property it was eight inches of water at low tide even lower. The boats sit in the mud. In that photograph you will see I believe it’s the first four boats on the south side belong to the Childs. You’ll see a ramp there or a dock a wooden dock. It is north of that the Murray marina if you will and Mr. Murray Sr. had good judgement by making it twenty feet or less and as you go north in that canal you will see getting to the bridge it is very narrow and I have had boats back in to my bulk head and that’s not pleasant. MEMBER HORNING : Ma’am when was the photo taken? ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting KATHLEEN KNAPP : On the back it says 1991. So I’m in favor in keeping it in the original state. As it was indicated many kayakers, young kids the boards that they’re riding on occasionally a jet ski will go through. You will see them turn around and come back they have better sense because it is very narrow and we do have one other member who is certainly more long standing than I am and he’ll come up and address. JIM CAREY : Maybe the best introduction that I’ve had in some time. My name is Jim Carey. About fifty years ago my dad bought the property that we now live in. We’re in Brushs we’re on Brushs Creek I should say in a community known as Edgemere. Brushs Creek runs down one side of Edgemere. The quote marina is in question here is really not a true marina in every sense of the definition. It has always been operated first by James Murray Sr. as a place where he could store his boats, relatives from time to time would come in and tie a boat up in there. It’s very small and it’s very shallow. You could not put a large boat in there because there isn’t enough room to back out of a slip assuming you can get it in on a tide that would be high enough and that may happen about once a month. This issue should not be happening. The gentleman in question present owner of that marina is an opportunist in my opinion. He’s trying to make this piece of property into something it isn’t. Furthermore he’s trying to make it something that it was never intended to be. It was a family run operation with small boats they were in and out. I’d invite each of you to take a look at the boat ramp. If any of you are boaters you know that to successfully launch a boat from a boat ramp you’d have to put the rear wheels of your car on that ramp. If you did that on this particular ramp you would end up with the back of your car in Brushs Creek it just wouldn’t hold the car. This whole situation should never be happening. It’s out of place, it’s inappropriate and Mr. Kelly is way off base. I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have of me. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We have this photo here from ’91 are you familiar with this photo? JIM CAREY : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Do you recognize any of those boats by any chance? JIM CAREY : This boat CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Somebody turn the microphone around so that it can pick your voice up. JIM CAREY : I recognize one boat that may that possibly belonged to one of my neighbors for a short period of time. It’s an outboard it looks to me to be about sixteen feet to give it a perspective. The boat ramp is actually up here where it’s being launched. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : I see okay. So there’s twelve boats there and that furthest one up you’re saying the boat ramp is just JIM CAREY : It’s kind of tucked in here into the bushes. MEMBER HORNING : You can’t see it. JIM CAREY : You can’t see it no and at one point in time we had a seventeen foot Thompson I don’t know if you’re familiar with it great boat it would not have fit on this ramp. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How do boats actually then end up in this in a boat slip they come around from where? How do you put them into the water and get them in and out? JERRY MORRISSEY : On July 4 th Mr. Kelly put his pontoon boat he took it off his premise and drove it over to Jamesport marina and used the boat dock there and his sons drove it around. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they drove it around. JERRY MORRISSEY :There’s no way he can be any boat of any size can be lowered in to that marina any size. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so the bottom line is anybody who’s ever used it historically has done the same thing. JERRY MORRISSEY : Always went over to Jamesport Marina if you know the Jamesport Marina has a huge cement boat ramp. MEMBER DANTES : It doesn’t say boat ramp on the PreCO. JERRY MORRISSEY : But it’s other court cases that are still pending that they’re referring to it as a boat ramp. MEMBER DANTES : I mean he’s not asking us to (inaudible) JERRY MORRISSEY : Any questions can I help CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no. It’s just simply about the restriction on the PreCO. KATHLEEN KNAPP : I do think we have to consider the platform and the motor that is attached to the boat because once you add to that to your boat that is the real length and it does become it’s part of the navigable waters then on Brushs Creek. MEMBER DANTES : Should it say that the length of the boat cannot stick out into past the pilings? ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting KATHLEEN KNAPP : Yea because that would the motor and the platform. MEMBER DANTES : So as long as the boat doesn’t stick past the pilings you would be okay? KATHLEEN KNAPP : I’d like to keep it at twenty or less the boats. It’s safe nobody is going to be crashing in to my bulkhead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The restriction on the PreCO says restricts the length of water craft to twenty feet it doesn’t day twenty feet as registered or twenty feet including the platform and the motor it just says twenty feet. KATHLEEN KNAPP : Well you can see from those pictures. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So probably some of the boats might have to I don’t know you know would the boat then have to be registered at twenty feet or would the boat have to be no longer than twenty feet including the motor and the platform. It doesn’t say. MEMBER DANTES : That’s why I wanted to go by the pilings. Looks like the piling is a nice geographic location that I mean you can’t stick KATHLEEN KNAPP : If you extend past that then you are in the navigable waters. MEMBER DANTES : That’s why. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. MEMBER DANTES : Mr. Ross would your client accept the restriction that he can’t put his boat past the pilings for storage? DAN ROSS : Can I address those comments that have been made? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course you can. DAN ROSS : There’s an assertion here that the marina was traditionally limited to twenty foot boats. There’s nothing in town records and there’s nothing before this Board except here say here say. We have 1968 letter from the Building Inspector telling the neighborhood in 1968 that this has been operated as a marina since 1951 and it’s a preexisting use. You have Mr. Koch’s affidavit before you a sworn statement that he worked as a mechanic on boats there that he leased slips there. This is not a friendly neighborhood. You can put your boat there for free situation it just wasn’t and it’s zoned MI. We go back to that the property is zoned MI it was recognized as a marina, it was recognized in 1968, it was recognized recently on the inspection and there was never a twenty foot restriction at least in terms of the record or anything else. We hear it said today I suggest it’s not a basis to deny this application. ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don’t think it’s being denied. MEMBER HORNING : Sir why would the preexisting certificate of occupancy say eleven slip small watercraft marina maximum length of watercraft of twenty feet? That’s what we’re looking at. DAN ROSS : Right and as I indicated the Board may not be aware but Mr. Kelly and the Building Department are fighting with each other okay. MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you. DAN ROSS : He’s had four charges against him including operating a marina without site plan approval and it says here we got a 1968 letter saying that this preexisted but that charge is still pending. He’s still being prosecuted for that. Even though the department went out and gave him a PreCO. Even though this Board said no site plan is necessary. He’s being prosecuted for storing his boat this is a triangular piece. In the back in other than the back yard but I don’t want to drag this Board into the whole of it but in terms of the boat ramp the Trustees call it a boat ramp. The D.E.C. calls it a boat ramp. It’s a boat ramp and its eight feet wide and it’s before you there’s a picture of it and the dimensions and if it collapses it’s Mr. Kelly’s boat ramp. If it collapses boo on Mr. Kelly I don’t think it would. I think it was built and it was permitted by the Trustees and the D.E.C. as a boat ramp. There is no evidence before this Board indicating any basis for a restriction. If a boat cannot get in and out of the creek it can’t get in and out of the creek that’s not a basis to limit the size of a boat. If you can’t get the boat down the ramp you can’t get the boat down the ramp. Mr. Kelly is willing because his boat is twenty one feet to go to twenty one feet but that’s we’re asking. We don’t think any limitation should be on it. I think it limits itself. I think the size of the marina limits the size of the boat and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Dan why do you think that Gary put that limitation in there? On what basis do you think he made that decision? DAN ROSS : He measured Frank Kelly’s boat and it was twenty one feet and then he said twenty feet why? I think it was basically the ongoing battle. I will tell you what Frank told me Gary Fish said I hate to do this. He said you lawyered up, you lawyered up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know the point is we do have some you know historical evidence based upon eye witnessed personal experience which the Board is allowed to consider in a decision as creditable testimony that you know it’s a very difficult narrow canal to navigate with very low tides and that safety is of some concern. So I you know it really I can’t think of another reason now you’re suggesting perhaps it was just personal you know and disputing parties but the bottom line is I would suspect that this the number of slips and the length have to do with what seemed to be the safest and historically accurate designation. I ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting mean obviously it’s acknowledged that a marina was there not only by the stuff you submitted but by the neighbors themselves and that’s why he got the PreCO you know so that was solved and the problem of site plan went away. This restriction it seems to me what we have to do is determine whether or not it was rational, whether or not it was related to issues like safety I don’t think we can consider personal you know dueling personalities particularly because that’s here say. DAN ROSS : You asked. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I asked your opinion and you gave it to me and that’s fine. So I think that’s what the Board has to think about you know but I do think that the neighbors life experience is creditable testimony. Even though there may not be something in writing you know from we do have old photographs that do show the size of boats and it’s possible to scale from an old photograph what the size of those boats were and you know that may be about what was what could be handled in that marina. DAN ROSS : I do submit there’s no one has stepped up here and said from personal knowledge there was a twenty foot restriction. No one has CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think we just heard that actually. Let’s see if we could hear it again or if we didn’t hear it if someone would like to say that please do. MEMBER HORNING : Ma’dam chairwoman may I ask to be excused? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course I think we’re pretty much done. George is a member from Fishers Island has to leave now to catch his boat which is a much bigger boat much much bigger boat. I’ll talk to you later George. JIM CAREY : If I may address the Board. With regard to size of the boats that was determined by pure practicality. Most of these boats in fact all of them to my knowledge had been outboards. When you pull an outboard in to Brushs Creek you have to be aware of the narrowness of the creek and also the depth of the creek. It’s very easy to run aground. It’s one of the reasons why most of the boats are in fact all of the boats in that marina to my knowledge are outboards. When you moor an outboard in shallow water you moor bow in cause the bow does not draw as much typically as the stern does. The stern has a lot of weight on it. When you do moor your boat with the bow in and the stern out it goes out into the creek and it restricts access up and down the creek because you have to pull the outboard up on the stern of the boat. That’s just the practicality. If you didn’t do it that way you wouldn’t be able to get half as many boats in there and the likelihood of you getting out of there at low tide would be slim to none. So hopefully I’ve cleared something up in that particular area and if you have any questions I’d be happy to we’ve been there a long time. We’ve seen a lot of people do or try a lot of different ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting things. This is the way it works and it’s evolved that way through trial and error. It’s the only way it can work. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let me ask counsel a question. You rightly said there’s nothing in writing that ever restricted a boat to twenty feet. Do you have anything in writing or in any other documentation showing boats historically on that property that were over twenty feet? DAN ROSS : No I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was trying to come at it from another way that’s all. Okay well I don’t know what else we can say about it at this point. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well I think this photograph is very helpful that the neighbor produced for us from my experience in boating I would have to say that the majority of these boats that are docked here are less than twenty feet but that’s just my opinion and from past experience looking at probably some Boston Whalers, a couple I think there’s a bow rider there these are all not very large boats. So where we go from there I don’t know I mean can we scale these do we want to use these as some type of reference in our determination or discuss it further at the next meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea well it looked like they were sixteen, eighteen I think the issue before the Board is you know you can overturn something if in fact it’s not rational If it appears to be arbitrary and capricious. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Do you want me to make my statement again like I did before. I mean I’ll make my statement before for the seven years that I rented down there. You want to know the size of my boat? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Fifteen feet four inches and I had trouble getting out and I have to tell you what was your name sir Jim how do you do? I stopped docking there around 1978 because it was actually a hazard getting out and what we did was get out of the boat and the sand built up to such a point that it became a suction thing and you actually had to hold on to the boat so that you weren’t taken away to be honest with you down with the sand and it was and I said this is it I have small children and I can’t do this anymore. JIM MORRISSEY : If not for any other reason I’m sorry it’s just the safety issue and the integrity of the canal and the integrity of my neighbor’s bulkhead should take priority here. Nothing else nothing more it’s factual. It’s not even an opinion, here say it’s factual and if anybody has any ?? July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting doubts please drive down to that site and take a look and bring a tape measure if you wish and you’ll see exactly what we’re referring to. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else Dan or anything from anybody else on the Board? Okay so hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GEOHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ??