Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/04/2016 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Southold, New York August 4, 2016 9:15 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES – Member GERARD GOEHRINGER – Member (Absent) GEORGE HORNING – Member KENNETH SCHNEIDER – Member KIM FUENTES – Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY – Town Attorney ? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page James Cox # 6970 3 – 8 Frank and Denise Dellaquilla # 6971 8 - 16 John Castiglione # 6972 16 - 19 Doug Gerowski # 6973 19 - 33 William Froehlich # 6974 33 - 47 C & L Realty, Inc. # 6975 48 - 50 Joseph Sbarra # 6977 50 - 54 ? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6970 – JAMES COX CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first public hearing before us is for James Cox #6970. This is a request for variance from Article XXII Section 280-105C(3) and the Building Inspector’s January 13, 2016 amended March 17, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for “as built” fence at 1) more than the code required maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard located at 50 Old Main Road in Laurel. Is there someone here to address the application? Please come forward and state and spell your name for the record. JAMES COX : Spells name. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please lift up that mic please sir we’re being recorded so we have to all talk in the microphones. So you have a six foot high fence partially located in a front yard. You’re on a corner lot, we’ve all inspected the property we’ve been there we’ve seen it. You’re on Bray and Old Main Rd. and tell us why you built that six foot fence and why it should remain when the code only allows four feet in the front yard. JAMES COX : Well mainly I built it for privacy and then with looking at the contour of the land the back portion of the lot drops down five feet so with a four foot fence it wouldn’t do any good for me for privacy cause I have my family comes over we have barbeques and I have people walking in my yard all the time coming up just thinking they’re going to have dinner on me and that’s not going to happen. I have you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You could actually create a conforming six foot high fence if you moved it back to what is on your survey if you moved it back from where it is to where the front of your house is then it would be in a side yard you’d have to move it back approximately JAMES COX : That would cut my back yard in half. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No not in half but it would be legal. The point is that you can achieve privacy by landscape screening put an arborvitae, you could put in Leyland cypress, you can put in a four foot high fence if you want some greater security and you can create privacy that way but JAMES COX : When I put it up it didn’t seem to me like it was a front yard because I had no doors on that side you know my doors my property is 50 Old Main Rd. so that side I thought was a side yard I didn’t you know ? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I live on a corner lot too and have two front yards it can be problematic for choices about what to do with your property that’s the way it is. Anything that fronts on the street is considered a front yard even if it’s the side of your house architecturally. MEMBER DANTES : Which front yard would you set do you use as your front yard which is your architectural front yard? JAMES COX : Old Main Rd. MEMBER DANTES : So your house faces Old Main Rd. JAMES COX : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : And your garage which road does your garage face? JAMES COX : The garage faces Bray. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sorry if you’re going to speak you need to come to the mic and state your name. ROBIN LYONS : I’m Robin Lyons I’m his wife I also reside there. Where the fence starts it starts even further past the garage. We’re ninety feet from the corner. We have a double lot so I understand the reason of the law is generally for people who have single lots for obstruction of view when people come to the corner but we have a double lot so we’re ninety feet away from the corner so there’s no obstruction. It’s not affecting the aesthetics of the road. Everybody that we’ve talked to I mean this is Marion she lives directly behind us if anybody is affected by us having a fence there it’s her and she actually prefers it because it cuts down on the traffic of the lights going into her bedroom at night. We also have a dog. Putting a four foot fence on a property that slopes down that much and just putting some bushes up the dog is going to get out that’s not going to work. You know I understand the reason for the law but it is a double lot you know we’re not just a single lot directly on a corner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken any questions? Eric? MEMBER DANTES : The fence is nine feet off the property line? ROBIN LYONS : It’s nine feet off of the edge of the road from the center of the road we just measured it we were 21.5 I think 26.5 from the center of the road. MEMBER DANTES : And that’s from I guess the yellow line? ROBIN LYONS : From the yellow line and then ninety feet from the stop sign. ? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Are there other fences in the neighborhood do you know? ROBIN LYONS : Not really fences. There’s a lot of people in our neighborhood that do have bushes on the corners in the front and their bushes actually do obstruct the view so that was one of the reasons we could put a fence up or far back we’re not obstructing anything you know that’s one of the big things you don’t want to try to get to stop a sign you can’t see around the corner but we’re really far off the stop sign. MEMBER DANTES : What’s the fence made of? ROBIN LYONS : Cedar? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s stockade. ROBIN LYONS : Stockade. MEMBER DANTES : So it’ll weather and end up turning gray? ROBIN LYONS : No I don’t like gray I want to paint it like the stained cedar gray not cedar gray cedar red so it blends in a little bit more. I want to put some mulch down. I want to do some plants but you know I’m not I don’t have a lot of money so I can’t do a plant every two feet to give us the privacy you know we do want to dress it up we’re trying to improve our area and by taking it down and trying to put up some sort of four foot fence that’s going to keep our dog in and some plantings to try to give us privacy. I mean that’s thousands upon thousands of dollars that’s just not in our budget. You know we’re a young couple. We bought a house in Southold Town we don’t rent it we’re trying to improve and this is what we get for it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When did you build the fence? ROBIN LYONS : Not that long after we moved in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When would that be? ROBIN LYONS : Last year we built it and we moved in the year before. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How is it that you came to be before our Board before the Zoning Board? ROBIN LYONS : Apparently there was an anonymous complaint. We have no idea who made the complaint about us cause we’ve talked we’re close with everybody in our neighborhood. Everybody in our neighborhood has no problem with the fence. I guess that she’s directly behind us and she loves it and that’s on Bray Ave. She’s the house that is next to us but behind us so I mean if there is anyone that would have detriment it would be her. ? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George do you have any questions? MEMBER HORNING : Well I was wondering if you had really considered planting of a living hedgerow of some kind that would screen your property. ROBIN LYONS : I had looked into that and that was really expensive from what I looked into the arborvitae and the privet fence the privet bushes putting that up and that was way too expensive to try to do it for that whole property. I mean it’s a half acre almost a half-acre lot it’s .47. MEMBER HORNING : Just along the front yard area. ROBIN LYONS : Well yea our back yard but yea the front yard according to the code. MEMBER HORNING : On Bray Ave. ROBIN LYONS : On Bray Ave. that would have been way too expensive for us to even consider doing and then plus that fact when you have that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you come up here for a second? ROBIN LYONS : Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to show you something. MEMBER HORNING : That’s about 200 less than 200 feet of hedge row. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is where your fence is now okay when I said if you moved this fence to here that would be legal because that is now that’s your front yard okay and this is your side yard over here side of your house alright that is not going to cut this big lot in half. I’m just showing you that that is a legal way to have that you could do what you want out here bushes or not but this would make that conforming and you would still have all the things you were looking for alright. I understand why you put it there I just want to make sure you understand what I was explaining previously that’s what the law would allow. ROBIN LYONS : Yea I know we do understand that but if I mean (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause it looks even higher than what it actually is because it’s bermmed up from the road so it’s a big visual obstacle. JAMES COX : (inaudible) everything inside of it is only like 4 ½ feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that’s what you see but that’s not what the public sees okay. ? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting ROBIN LYONS : Right and that’s what I was going to say too I mean I understand what you’re saying about (inaudible) into our yard and you visualize where that fence would be on the edge of the house it really does it’s a big difference in our yard space. That’s one of the reasons why we bought that house was to have that space for dog to run around, for our nieces and nephews to run around and I mean it really it doesn’t seem like it but when you’re in the back yard and you visualize it, it really does cut it in half. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I just wanted you to see what this what was permitted and the Board is obligated to grant when justified the smallest variance possible from the code. If in fact there is no other viable alternative and there’s justifiable reasons based on these various (inaudible) that we have to look at so let me see if there’s would you like to say anything ma’am in the audience if so please just come to the podium and state your name. MARYANN GAMBLE : My name is Maryann and I am Jim and Robin’s neighbor. I lived on that property that they have purchased it was my family home from when I was little and we did when we lived there we did have a living fence but I’ll tell you we had always drunks and everything laying under the trees over there, bottles, garbage always it was disgusting. MEMBER HORNING : Is there a bar nearby there? MARYANN GAMBLE : A who? MEMBER HORNING : A bar a night club? MARYANN GAMBLE : They walk you know that road is walked all night long. Young people, men and women I’m not going to just say men but you know they’re singing and they hollering and they’re MEMBER HORNING : Are they residents of the neighborhood? MARYANN GAMBLE : I don’t know if they’re locals or whether they’re just you know summer residents or like they have weekend homes out here but it has been that way forever and Robin and Jim asked me if I was okay with you know the fence and I said as long as you don’t block my view coming out of my drive or block my house you know it comes right to the side of my house not that close but I mean so you don’t block my air my wind and my light and so they stopped it at a decent place and it doesn’t seem to make my house look bad and knowing Jimmy he’s working out there all the time he wouldn’t let it deteriorate. We have another neighbor to the right of us well it would be the right of you and forget it I mean we’ve complained many times to the Board cause they have an above ground cesspool that just smell I don’t know and they’re fence is now falling down on my property so they don’t upkeep theirs at all and at least it covers up that mess that I don’t see it so I’m happy with that but that’s all I have to say. ? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments anything else from the Board? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I think you covered it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We’ll have a decision probably two weeks from today in the evening and you can call the next day and it gets mailed to you anyway. Thank you. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6971 – FRANK and DENISE DELLAQUILLA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken Schneider has recused himself so the next application before the Board is for Frank and Denise Dellaquilla # 6971. Request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s May 2, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for two “as built” sheds at 1) accessory frame shed in other than the code required rear yard, 2) accessory frame shed is less than the code required setback of 25 feet from the rear property line located at 4725 New Suffolk Avenue in Mattituck morning Pat. PAT MOORE : Good morning thank you. This is well this is this application as you know is for the two sheds that are there on the property. I’ll take the larger shed first that one was built there by the prior owner. I’m sure that that prior owner believed didn’t realize their property was 80,001 which is just triggered the larger setback the setback being it should have been twenty feet instead of 19.1 because if you look at the tax map it says 1.8 acres so there is this property ? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting is I guess when it’s translated it’s the 80,001 so that one square foot kind of pushes everything into a different setback CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The notice says 25 feet is required on a lot that size. PAT MOORE : Well at the time it was built the setbacks were different I believe that the setbacks at the time were ten feet if I remember correctly. As I said this shed was built there you can see when you went to look at it, it was built on site. It can’t be moved. If it moves it’ll just deteriorate and it’s a very useful shed because we did talk about the cost of making a variance application is costly and plus my time and the surveyors and everything but the reality is that to move it would be to destroy it and it really has a lot of character. It’s as you can tell it looks like a oh how would we describe it unique for sure it’s a shed pure and simple it’s not used for any kind of habitation but it looks like a an old shed I guess. FRANK DELLAQUILLA : I’m Frank Dellaquilla. The appearance from the outside it’s pretty distraught but it’s functional for us. We use it to put our lawn equipment, pool equipment you know various things like that. I have tools in there like Pat said to move it it would it’s nearly impossible to be moved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did do an inspection by the way and we did Eric and I both went inside and it’s an unfinished PAT MOORE : It’s an unfinished shed yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does it have a foundation? Is it on a slab? FRANK DELLAQUILLA : No. PAT MOORE : So when they purchased the property that shed was there and it had a lot of character and they want to keep it. It’s placement there as you can see is 19 feet from the property line as you saw the property is very heavily wooded. The back the row of trees behind are forty foot evergreens and with additional shrubbery it is this whole property is very nicely screened from all sides so it’s there and it doesn’t harm the character of the neighborhood. It’s purely an issue of the setback based on today’s code of twenty five feet. To move it twenty five feet would push it right almost on top of the existing pool and that would not be desirable at all even if it could be moved quite frankly it couldn’t be moved so the variance we think is minimal given the fact that it’s already at 19 from the property line. MEMBER HORNING : Pat when was the shed built? FRANK DELLAQUILLA : The previous homeowner told me it was built in 1994. ? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : And you’re maintaining that the setback was PAT MOORE : Yea the setbacks were quite different at that time. We could have depending on the size you could go to five feet but I think based on the size of this property it would have been the larger setback which was ten feet. MEMBER HORNING : You’re maintaining that it was conforming PAT MOORE : It would have been conforming at the time just the code when it was changed later on in the 2000 period I think you guys you may have been involved in the setback existing setbacks the changes based on the size of this property it became the 25 feet which is a sizeable setback it’s given the placement of the house and the placement of the pool the house the pool everything is really pushed back on the back of this property. The driveway to the house is 200 feet away from New Suffolk Ave. so all of the improvements on this property are towards the back. The rear property owner is was the old Miska farm is now Eric Kyle who is a commercial farmer. He has his trailers and all his greenhouses, equipment everything is back there and this does not affect him in any way. The property also has a stockade fence so again it’s very private both to the owner and as well to the neighbor so we believe that given the circumstances and the fact that to move it would be to destroy it we would ask for a variance for this shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay how about the little one? PAT MOORE : The little one, the little one houses only a lawn a riding lawn mower. It was put there fifteen FRANK DELLAQUILLA : ’01. PAT MOORE : ’01 oh time flies okay fifteen years ago fourteen years ago. It was placed over to the far corner out of sight it’s down a the property is sloped in that area and it’s tucked in between some trees so again to move it we’d have to work around the trees that are surrounding it. It happens that that corner is a very preferred corner by all the neighbors because the Conways and the Williams also have sheds that are tucked in behind in that corner so it seems to be the out of sight out of mind corner for all the neighbors to put their small sheds. This one is close to the property line however it is again surrounded by trees, it is blocked by stockade fence so it can’t be seen at all and to move it is going to be more of a I guess more difficult because of the trees that surround it. You’re not going to be able to get if you had to get a shed mover one of the gentlemen up on the north road that sometimes can move sheds for you they’re going to have a hard time because there are trees that are surrounding it to put the to put rollers underneath this existing shed. Again it’s a very insignificant structure and generally does not even need a building permit because of its size. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting It’s less than code required for a building permit however you know you’re supposed to put them at the proper setbacks. To move it to the 20 feet from the property line it has again it has the same rules as an accessory structure because of the one square foot over 80,000 it’s going to place it pretty much in the kind of in the center of a natural green area. When I went back there I don’t know I didn’t have my survey with me at the time I went to the property and I actually had to ask where’s the shed because you really don’t even see it it’s so tucked in to the corner. So again these are technical required variances but in the fact that they are truly do not impact anyone I would hope that the Board would see that they’re very minor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t think it’s the setback for the small shed it’s the side yard location that’s being sited here. PAT MOORE : Oh it’s the side yard. It should be a setback shouldn’t it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : it should be but they didn’t even mention that. PAT MOORE : Side yard that’s I this is FRANK DELLAQUILLA : It’s pretty similar to a flagged lot. PAT MOORE : Well this being the flag it’s very odd that they would call this the side because to me the side of this house is where the stone driveway is but because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I agree. PAT MOORE : Yea so this one was one where I don’t necessarily agree with the Building Department but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I wanted to bring that up because if you draw a line a continuous line from the rear of the house PAT MOORE : Or the deck even. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : at the same angle you’re going to bisect that little small piece of driveway right and anything behind it I mean now the other way is that they draw the other line the other way PAT MOORE : I think what they did is they took the rear property line took it parallel and so anything in that that’s how they did it. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : They come to that corner and yea well from here MEMBER DANTES : It’s the corner of the deck not the house. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Well they take the rear you see how the rear property line you just take that as MEMBER DANTES : Yea but they go to the corner of the deck I believe. PAT MOORE : So really even the side yard would be even larger based on their yea this FRANK DELLAQUILLA : (Talking with Pat) PAT MOORE : Well why don’t you put that on the record because FRANK DELLAQUILLA : This shed I mean you guys were at the property right so the shed is probably a good 20 feet below the road surface so there’s a pretty steep grade to get down to that area so there’s no way to get vehicles in my yard because of existing trees I mean I have to take down trees to get trucks in there and destroy my lawn to move this shed up into the point where the Building Department would like it behind the house and like I said the grade is probably a good twenty feet down you guys were there you saw the my kids used to sleigh ride down that hill in the winter time so that’s the other situation is how would we possibly move it up to that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. George any questions? MEMBER HORNING : No other than I was looking at your deposition here from they submitted a copy of the code and you’re one foot over the 80,000 square feet which puts you in a different setback category. It was as it says here in 1994 or so from ’91 on at twenty feet setback not ten but the ten foot setback goes for up to 80,000 apparently. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Just one foot I’m wondering if you have any other surveys older surveys? PAT MOORE : I looked at the original subdivision map and I don’t think I saw that it was below well it was 80,000 let me look. MEMBER DANTES : I’m just cause I know I mean surveyors are exact as you get but one foot I mean PAT MOORE : (away from microphone) FRANK DELLAQUILLA : Yea I think on the tax map it’s 1.84. MEMBER DANTES : What does 1.84 translate to? PAT MOORE : I think that the code with respect to setbacks has it going from 80,000 so ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting FRANK DELLAQUILLA : Isn’t 80,000 two acres? PAT MOORE : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your survey says 1.837 acres. PAT MOORE : Yea but when he did it in square feet CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It comes out to 80,001. PAT MOORE : Again these are more technical you know numerical variances than they are in anyway impacting anyone. And again also how one looks at the placement of the house being is it a rear yard or a side yard I think I still would consider that entire area being a rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I actually just want to ask a question about the fence the stockade fence that’s on the property some of it as you enter the you know the driveway where it starts on the right hand side it varies in height but some of it you know in a front yard it has to be four feet maximum and a lot of that fence is five to six feet some of it is rotting out you know kind of deteriorated and all that it kind of steps down and it kind of goes back up where it starts you know where your house is I mean I think the height’s fine and there is only one little weird corner as it makes that you know where the little shed is go up from there and make a left and then you could see there’s a couple of looks like a little bit off the property line. PAT MOORE : Chain link fence. FRANK DELLAQUILLA : Right cause there are big locusts trees in the way there and when we did the fence we spoke to the neighbor behind us who is still the same neighbor and we let them know that we had to had to kind of encroach on their spot there and they had no problem with it and you see the rest of the fence is probably a foot or so maybe two feet on my property line on that same back area that chain link. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I only bring it up because the Board inevitably when variances are granted requires that all things be on the subject property and this does happen sometimes where people’s fencing winds up not on their property and the survey shows it basically you’d never know it by looking at it you know just it’s on the survey. Do you think you can get a note from your neighbor indicating that this was a prior agreement that this PAT MOORE : I think you should for title purposes too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I mean most lawyers would of advised you to move it on your property period because ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : No actually that is not a concern that corner my concern is on the other side where we’re giving the other the neighbor so much land see where the fence is off their property line that will create a title problem for you when you sell. FRANK DELLAQUILLA : You can’t do anything with that land. The trees that are back there they’re tremendous that’s why it’s that’s why the fence is more I couldn’t put it on the other side of the trees cause it would have been on his property that’s why I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All I’m asking for is just something in our record that says that gets us off the hook from obligating ourselves to condition a variance based upon your moving all fencing to your property which is typically what we would do so if in fact that little section that’s not on your property PAT MOORE : I understand what you’re asking for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : was by agreement PAT MOORE : I would actually do it as a combination no claim of right so that we don’t lose this in your title and then an agreement that you know this can encroach here so everybody it’s almost like a boundary line agreement where both sides agree the fence can stay where it is but neither side makes a claim against the other for title purposes. That’ll make them happy too or it should make them happy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m explaining to Bill how the Building Department uses the rear yard line to determine side yard because if you look at the house that’s a back yard the house is skewed on the property that’s what this is often what creates these anomalous conditions that are technically in a different yard than what the code allows but if you calculate it based upon being parallel to the rear of the house then it’s in a rear yard so MEMBER HORNING : But it’s parallel to the road CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They go from here they go there and they bring this line here to this corner and so anything here is a side yard. That’s their front yard see they would do that that’s their front yard there well either way I mean it’s a parallel line which is causing this weird thing. MEMBER HORNING : I mean you can barely see the little shed there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would simply suggest I don’t think we’ll have to do it now but when that stockade fence deteriorates to where it really has to be demolished and replaced that you do so with just a four foot fence. PAT MOORE : Yea we were just talking about that. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Put that in the note as well. Just you know what we can condition that that’s very easy you know that just when this non-conforming height when this fence needs to be replaced that it will be replaced to conforming height. PAT MOORE : Yea I’m put it this way CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you replace it at all I mean that’s entirely up to you or just remove it. PAT MOORE : Right yea, yea he was just telling me the reason it had been put up there by the prior owner and the reason was that Williams used to store a lot of junk cars in the back so it blocked FRANK DELLAQUILLA : Which are now gone. PAT MOORE : They’re now gone so it’s good you know it’s been cleaned up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know it’s what we’re talking about really is from the beginning of paralleling along your driveway you know going to the corner. PAT MOORE : Right well that’s the area that was blocking the view of the Williams back yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what would you like us to do about that do you want to remove it do you want it PAT MOORE : You can put it as a condition that when it deteriorates they’ll replace with a four foot fence that’s not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Removal or replacement to conform. PAT MOORE : Right it’s not a problem my he was telling me the only issue with trying to get a letter from that neighbor they’re in their eighties and I don’t want I mean they all get along so I’m just hoping that FRANK DELLAQUILLA : One of them is not in very good health. The wife is in good health the husband is not but I mean if you need me to go over I can speak to them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don’t the two of you decide how best to handle it and then just submit something to our office that accomplishes what we’re looking for and I don’t really care how you do that. PAT MOORE : Well I can’t force somebody to sign something CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you give us a sworn affidavit you know testifying ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : We can do it as a sworn affidavit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that alright with you Eric? PAT MOORE : I can we’ll try I don’t want to put anybody in an awkward position. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look it’s at your (inaudible) it’s not on your property it’s really for your protection not the neighbor so we can take care of the stockade part you give us something that indicates that we’re not going to it provides us with the kind of information that we need that will not have to require you to put it on your property. FRANK DELLAQUILLA : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of a letter regarding existing chain link fence. MEMBER HORNING : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER HORNING : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6972 – JOHN CASTIGLIONE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John Castiglione #6972. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s March 8, 2016 amended June 2, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct a front yard wood deck addition to a single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 3010 Kenney’s Rd it is not adjacent to Great Pond in Southold. Would you please state your name for the record for us? JOHN CASTIGLIONE : John Castiglione. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning sir. JOHN CASTIGLIONE : Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have two front yards. You’re on Soundview and Kenneys and your primary entrance where your driveway and garage is on Soundview? JOHN CASTIGLIONE : That’s right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to put a opened deck with railing right 18 feet from the road where the code requires 35 feet and lot coverage will be bumped up to 20.7% where the maximum permitted by code is 20%. What would you like to tell this application? JOHN CASTIGLIONE : The two primary things I think are most important the first is that the existing stoop I guess it’s best to call it concrete and brick with a metal railing is crumbling and needs to be replaces one way or the other so as I learned from the Building Department going through this process that stoop itself actually falls closer to the road than 35 feet anyway so it’s already less than that. The porch that we propose would be a few feet closer I think it’s something like five feet closer but it runs parallel to the house the road diverges from the existing line of the house the one end of the porch that gets farther away I think the other is that it would actually bring the house aesthetically I guess closer to the surrounding houses most of which have wood porches or are in the process of sort of fixing their houses up are putting them on. I think the existing porch is unsightly to say the least and it’s starting to get unsafe so I think at the end of the day it would be a project that would actually bring the house closer in line with the houses around it. It would be a little more useful for us. I think it would certainly be easier for us to have two sets of steps instead of just one since we have children it would allow us to get right into the yard allow them to be in the yard rather than walking around as we have to now so I think it’s a pretty simple project but I’m certainly happy to answer any questions anyone might have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the lot coverage is certainly almost diminimus meaning insignificant its less than one percent. MEMBER HORNING : Where are you picking that up Leslie the lot coverage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lot coverage is in the Notice of Disapproval. MEMBER HORNING : Oh okay 20.7. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep. Do you have any idea what the setback is at the farthest corner from the proposed deck? It’s 18 at the closest. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting JOHN CASTIGLIONE : It’s 18 at the close deck the surveyor didn’t I mean I think you could draw a parallelogram and it would something on the order of maybe twenty one, twenty two feet or more you know it’s not huge but it’s you know several feet by the time you sort of make the triangle of the two lines. And actually that would be the corner of the stairs. If you were to pull it back even more to the actual where the actual porch would be excepting the stairs then you’re talking another four feet so your probably getting to twenty six or so feet depending. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let’s see if the Board has any questions. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is there any intentions to put a roof on this? JOHN CASTIGLIONE : No. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So it’s just a deck. JOHN CASTIGLIONE : Just a deck with a handrail. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With a railing around it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The Notice of Disapproval says construct a front porch addition when I hear front porch I’m thinking maybe it’s JOHN CASTIGLIONE : My wife and I had the same conversation the other day. She thinks it’s a deck I call it a porch. It is just cedar planks with a cedar had railing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we have the drawings so I don’t know why they’re calling it a porch. It’s a deck. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea that’s what I would call it. JOHN CASTIGLIONE : I’m going to owe my wife a dinner now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We go by the survey you’re just basically trying to show us that the existing stoop. JOHN CASTIGLIONE : The existing stoop is non-conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically though stairs and a landing of less than a certain square footage isn’t calculated in the setback. It’s there physically but it isn’t JOHN CASTIGLIONE : I think even the house itself is closer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea the house is 24.6 so the entire property is already non- conforming to the setback. Any questions Ken or Eric? ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George anything? MEMBER HORNING : I have a minor question. I’m noticing on what is it your application submitted by yourself a letter says that as the enclosed application material show the existing slab concrete porch again that’s (inaudible) right cause it’s not a porch was built with the house in 1950 and yet I took note that you have a Certificate of Occupancy going back to 1957 based on a building permit from June of ’57 building permit #27 so I’m suggesting that in fact that house was actually one of the first houses built after zoning code was put in and it was not built in 1950. It was built in 1957. JOHN CASTIGLIONE : Interesting. For some reason I had it in my mind I should of checked the paperwork that it was 1950 but I guess that’s not correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright anything else? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We’ll have a decision in the evening in two weeks from today and we’ll mail it to you but you can call the office on the Friday if you like and find out I have to go in and sign it and legalize it we have to send it to Town Clerk and then you’ll get a copy but you can call the office if you’d like to know what happened or you can attend the meeting if you want to sit in. JOHN CASTIGLIONE : Thank you very much. HEARING # 6973 – DOUG GEROWSKI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Doug Gerowski # 6973. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting May 19, 2016 amended June 13, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 2570 Clearview Ave. (adj. to Goose Creek) in Southold. PAT MOORE : Good morning. This application in looking at the history of this file I was telling Doug that I’ve been involved with this property since 2000. It was when Clayjon owned it he bought the lot and it took some time to develop because of the water moratorium. The code at the time was and when the house was built with Trustees approval it was to be located 75 feet from the edge of wetlands so the house was placed there it was at the time it was a setback and it conformed with the setbacks of the 75 feet. Then over the years we got transfers of permits. Clayjon sold to Meyer and Meyer to Shidet and Mr. Shidet who is a client of mine sold to Doug so here we are. The code keeps changing but the property and the house do not and at this point the request is to put an elevated patio with a pool. The pool is going to be a salt water pool, so I received a comment from a neighbor questioning you know the impact of chlorine on salt water during storms but in fact there’s not going to be any impact particularly because it’s a salt water pool. I saw the LWRP comment and the issue of storm damage and things like that because it’s in AE 6 foot elevation in fact my knowledge of this property is that even during Sandy the water didn’t come up and didn’t affect this property. It over took the wetlands but the property was unaffected by the storms. The fact that it’s a patio and a pool it’s non-habitable structure so it’s even in the worst you know worse than Sandy it would not impact this property you’re not affecting the house. If anything you’re protecting the house more by the elevated patio. It’s going to be stone patio as I recall yea so we’re providing an even greater protection for the house. When we we’re trying to design this addition it was a challenge because again in all the new code provisions we maintained we had to go back and redesign a couple of times because we had to maintain the setbacks the side yard setbacks. As you know when we deduct the acreage of wetlands we don’t change the code setbacks so regardless of the fact that now our buildable area is reduced we still have to use all the higher numbers that are the for this size property so went back to the drawing board this is a very I would say a modest request in that it is a relatively small patio area with a standard smaller sized pool and again we maintain the setback to the wetlands of 54 feet. In part because of the covenants to keep or the permit conditions it’s not really a covenant on this property it’s a permit condition to maintain the 50 foot non-disturbance non-fertilization buffer reminding you that when we started when that condition was put in was before the house was built so it was a condition with the wetland line in a very different location more seaward than it is today. Part of our application process is going to go to the Trustees. We hope the Trustees and I believe the Trustees will grant this we maintain the 50 foot which was well used to be well is still the rule with the Trustees that you for accessory structures be it pools that they want to ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting see at least a 50 foot setback from wetlands so all of those regulatory conditions thrown onto this property result in again a modest request. The lot coverage as I said is the fact that after this property was created after it was developed the change to the code that eliminates what is otherwise you’re being taxed on and your property size is significantly reduced by the wetlands. We’re here more to answer questions because the lot coverage is again it’s based on the regulations of the wetlands being deducted from the size of the property and the lot coverage is 24.2 so it’s a 4.2 % variance which is a relatively small variance request given that the size of the property is 29,021 square feet so it’s over a half acre and you’re limited significantly in the area that you can build on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat in the LWRP there is discussion about the wetland line differing from the 2000 approved survey and the September 2015 survey last revised April 29 th. This change would relocate the non-disturbance fertilization 15 foot wide buffer and it’s recommended that the 50 foot non-disturbance fertilization buffer be added to the submitted survey to determine if any encroachments would occur. Can you address that? PAT MOORE : I did see that, that to me is I mean he seems to be dealing in a realm of Trustee jurisdiction. We’re going to be at the Trustees. They are going to be on site. The fact that his the prior owner he’s only owned the property since September what they did is they vegetated the area in fact there was a small the existing conditions show a shed and a small stone line man made fish pond. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we’ve all inspected it. PAT MOORE : Yea exactly well for the record only so it’s clear those things are actually going to be removed with this with the proposal here so we’re making everything I believe more conforming in the sense that the fish ponds don’t need a Trustees permit. They’re actually exempt from Trustee permit but it’s not necessary. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t think they count in lot coverage either do you? PAT MOORE : No they don’t count in lot coverage they’re but they’re in an area where the non- disturbance they’re within the buffer area so we’re going to remove them and that was a prior owner. We’re also removing a shed as well so in fact this application is eliminating some issues that might have been a problem had he wanted to keep everything here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know if the Trustees permit also permitted cutting of the fragmites and this access right to the floating dock and there’s a permit for the dock and all that? ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yes there were there’s actually there’s a permit for the dock that was issued to Edson back in 1984 so the dock was permitted there before the house was even built. Then in 2004 we transferred the permits from Clayjon to Shidet. The also well the Trustees reviewed it in 1987 they asked that the foundation be relocated closer to the road at the time so it’s gone through all the permitting processes. There are permits for everything. In fact in 2005 before Shidet or when he was finished with all the projects he got a certificate of compliance in March 8 th of 2005 so there was a garage the single family house the garage and the deck were all built and the permit number I have here is 5241 that was issued in 2000 and extended and ultimately the house and the decks and everything that’s built but yes the one of the earlier permits that’s in the Trustees records is cutting the fragmites maintenance a Trustees permit for maintenance cutting so that was done here as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea cause there’s a very long very circuitous path of tracks PAT MOORE : Oh that actually has a permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pardon. PAT MOORE : Yea that walkway which is like a decking walkway there’s an administrative permit from the Trustees to put that in because originally there was a pathway right in the center and Mr. Shidet at the time liked this material went to the Trustees and worked it around along the side so yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to make sure everything was in the record that’s all. Well I think we have requested comments from the Trustees by the way on this application just so we’re all on the same page. PAT MOORE : We have to go before them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh I know you have to appear before them you come to us before you go to them but in situations where we both have concurring jurisdiction we work closely with them to try and make sure that things proceed in a way that is coordinated in terms of the review so we ask for comments we haven’t gotten them yet. I think last week we asked for them so it’s probably not enough time to get back comments from them. Certainly they’re going to want to see what the original wetland line looked like when they granted this in 2000 you know approved survey and it might be a good idea to put it on the one that we’ve got and then you’ll have it for them because they’re going to want to see it. PAT MOORE : So we’d have to go back to the surveyor and ask him to plot CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The original lines ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : The original edge of wetland flagged by En-Consultants back in CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2000 PAT MOORE : 2000 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s what they approved and then if we see it and they see it we’re seeing the same thing and we can proceed in a coordinated way. I don’t know how long it’s going to take them to get us comments but I think maybe what we should do is I’ll have to ask the Board but perhaps we should adjourn to the Special Meeting. MEMBER DANTES : I’d like to ask a question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea of course we’re not (inaudible) from asking questions I’m just saying I think in order to give them time to for you to go to the surveyor and get that information on your (inaudible) probably can do it that way buy some time and then if there’s no question we just close it in two weeks. Go ahead Eric. MEMBER DANTES : So you’re in the zone AE elevation does that mean the pool will be raised from the PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : What’s the grade at? PAT MOORE : The existing grade or the MEMBER DANTES : Yes. PAT MOORE : Let me see if I have a if I have anything that has MEMBER DANTES : It’s going to be close because you’re at Zone X is right behind where the pool is. PAT MOORE : Yea I’m just looking to see I’m looking at the construction survey cause there was grading and it was elevated at the time it was constructed in 2000 so well the pool is the house is MEMBER DANTES : Well according to your survey that you’ve given us the existing lot coverage is 14.4% so you’re proposing a 10% increase in lot coverage and just wondering if there’s a way you can do it without going over the 20%. PAT MOORE : No we tried we that we did because obviously coming to you is you know not that you’re not all very lovely to see but most people would prefer not to have to go to the ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting Zoning Board between the cost and the process the delay. We tried every way possible and no matter what we were over the lot coverage so at that point we said alright we will come in with the application. MEMBER DANTES : And it’s the raised patio that’s going to put you over the lot coverage? PAT MOORE : Yes well yea because the pool is part of the patio so yes. Taking the patio MEMBER DANTES : I’m just trying to figure out how far like how is it going to be like six inches above grade (inaudible) I’m trying to figure out the actual number. PAT MOORE : He would know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you just speak into the mic sir state your name please. DOUG GEROWSKI : Doug Gerowski good morning. I believe the intention is to gradually berm to where there’s about a two foot section of the pool wall that will be exposed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you’re going to do some regrading on the property is that what you’re saying? DOUG GEROWSKI : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well the Trustees are going to be very interested in that because PAT MOORE : Yea they’re going to wanna well that’s why really CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : of drainage into the wetlands. PAT MOORE : Well let me I know you have this photograph so (away from microphone) the house is elevated (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Above the base grade. PAT MOORE : Yea above the base grade so the pool is in fact going down not at the same height as the existing deck but it is going to be in between so it is MEMBER DANTES : What do you mean on how far off the patio and pool are going to be raised? PAT MOORE : We could get that or if you’d like do we know yet or it’s going to be DOUG GEROWSKI : What the height of the pool wall? I believe it’s going to be six feet the pool wall will start at six feet. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : So the patio and pool will be six feet above grade then? DOUG GEROWSKI : Correct. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That’s six feet above grade but elevations (inaudible) PAT MOORE : You’re asking elevation or grade? MEMBER DANTES : No I want above if it was all at grade right you wouldn’t need a variance so I’m trying to figure out what’s triggering the property PAT MOORE : Oh you mean the entire structure CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because it’s considered a structure. MEMBER DANTES : Well not the pool will need (inaudible) counts for lot coverage but the on grade patio would not so I’m trying to figure out a part of the patio is going to be on grade or the whole PAT MOORE : No the whole thing it’s going to be all on one level so MEMBER DANTES : So then how far above DOUG GEROWSKI : Six feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He’s saying six feet off the ground. DOUG GEROWSKI : Six feet off the ground would be the level of the patio and the top of the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s quite a slope. It’s going to have to be raised considerably to really excavate sufficiently for the depth of a pool and you know to actually work functionally from your house coming out onto your house PAT MOORE : Right, right to try to vary the pool in this area it starts becoming an issue with water you know you’re going to so really it’s almost like an above ground pool that your building and then the patio is being built around it. MEMBER DANTES : So it’s environmental conditions and FEMA regulations that are triggering the need to pursue a variance. PAT MOORE : Well yea it’s between the both I don’t think the FEMA regulations ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not FEMA it’s related to the elevation of the house the (inaudible) because they would have to step down a lot in order to get to the pool they want to come out of their house and be PAT MOORE : Yea be closer to the level not quite as high as the existing deck because that’s 10 feet or so it’s about four feet you go four steps down CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably so that’s why I want comments from the Trustees to be honest I want to look at land disturbance, I want to look where the water table is these are all issues that we need to address in the decision it’s you know it’s lot coverage that we’re looking at but we need to make sure that anything we do doesn’t in any way inhibit the Trustees from MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And the LWRP inconsistent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we have to make it consistent with LWRP in order for us to make a determination so that’s why we need the information and the comments from them it isn’t about the lot coverage per say it’s to make sure that we can find a ruling of consistency with LWRP so we can proceed with the lot coverage. PAT MOORE : Well my only concern with asking the Trustees for comments when we didn’t have the opportunity to make the application to them and explain and discuss it with them is that it’s typically easier to deal with the Trustees one on one and say okay Trustees if you’d rather we not berm for example they want you know they say okay you can build the wall but keep it at keep the grade the same it’s just a matter of what the wall how the exposed surface of the wall so those are the kind of discussions that we typically have in the field so if the Board wants we could get an application to the Trustees so that we have coordinated CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : That would be a great idea. PAT MOORE : I prefer that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea because you know if for any reason they basically say alright look you know we want this cut back slightly here because of this that and the next thing and we grant a specific lot coverage and it turns out to be a little more or a little less then we need to amend the decision to reflect what they’re doing that’s why I wanted to try and coordinate it for your benefit as well as our making a decision. PAT MOORE : No I appreciate it I mean it’s good that we get their comments but again I think it’s better if we do it through an application process. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh definitely. I mean we would send them over we have sent them our application but it would be better if you submitted yea we don’t ask them for comments without sending them the application. PAT MOORE : Oh good because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are they going to comment on if they don’t see what we’re applying for so you know they have seen what is before us I’m sure they would also ask to compare the permit that you know was granted in 2000 with what’s being applied for here to take a look at the encroachment of wetlands on the property and all of that. So why don’t you do that Pat let’s just do you have any more questions Ken has some PAT MOORE : Let me give you some more information because it might address some of the issues. I have a survey from originally 2000 it was the final revision was December of 2000 that’s when they went through the whole sanitary review and on that survey I have a test hole the test hole data from 2000 and generally it doesn’t change much. It shows that we reach water at elevation 1.8 which happens to be six feet down I’ll give this to you for the record it’s we reach water in pale brown fine sand at if I’m reading this correctly 6.2 I think yea. Your eyes are hopefully better than mine it looks like 6.2 because it goes from 3 to 6 you have pale brown sand fine sand to coarse sand so with respect to digging the pool into the ground I think we’re going to have some hydrological issues because we’re going to reach water so and that’s generally you don’t want to do that so I’m going to give this to you for the record. It shows also the original edge of wetlands that you’re asking me to plot but its here for you. I highlighted the line that I was looking at. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s what Mark was looking at here PAT MOORE : Oh you have one in your file? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it’s very hard to read. PAT MOORE : Yea it’s mine is a little larger. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yours is much better I mean this is just mush but we got the point he spelled it out. PAT MOORE : Yea when we were looking at the area if you see that the house was originally set back at 75 feet which was what the code required at the time and the area of non-disturbance being 50 that left 25 feet that’s why when we came up with this pool and patio we are within that 25 feet we’re a little under because it’s we have 52 feet so we’re two feet within that 25 feet that we can work with it you know the building area let’s call it. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Alright Ken had some questions. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes what would be very helpful for me would if you could do a section through the pool and to the house it doesn’t have to be that detailed to the house but I guess a section drawing showing perhaps the first floor of the house, the second floor of the house and the patio, pool, depth of the pool. PAT MOORE : Section of like rear of the house CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s call it the side section you start in the front yard and you work your way through to see where the grade drops and raises and so on. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : See on your survey here on this submitted survey PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And you see where it says clearing and it shows the offset 54.3 feet that line that arrow if you continue that through and that could be your section line follow me? PAT MOORE : Yea I do. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So you’d get some of the southerly portion of the existing topography and then showing the wall of the patio and then you can show the pool perhaps the depth of the pool and how it relates to the finished floor of the house. PAT MOORE : It’s all cha-ching it’s just going to be costly to have cause we’re going to have to get an architect or an engineer or somebody to draw this whole thing. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : This is what I would assume this would have to be done anyway even or your design purposes someone has to come up with the idea of where the wall is going to go. PAT MOORE : Well ultimately we’re going to need plans for the wall and for the pool and so on but you’re asking for construction drawing prior to approvals so it’s you know I just hope you keep that in mind and that you approve it because you’re making him spend money on construction drawings. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No not necessarily I’m just asking for a section it doesn’t have to be construction drawings just a section through it. PAT MOORE : I will do our best to get that. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It will be a little bit easier to understand how it relates to the existing topography and the need for the raised patio the need for the severe raised patio as opposed ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting to I think what Eric was speaking to before if part of the patio was in fact could be at grade then that would relieve some of the request for possible lot coverage but that’s not the case this is going to be a big retaining wall with a pool in it correct? PAT MOORE : Yes. Well it’s going to be an elevated yea, yea. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And so that’s going you know footings in the ground and you know big structural probably tall walls with rebar PAT MOORE : Well it’s not the first one that we’ve ever done you know out here. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No, no, no but I’m saying it’s that’s a lot more then when I first looked at this in the PAT MOORE : On the survey. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : On the flat view you don’t get all that you just see okay just give you a patio with a pool in it but this is a lot more construction than I first imagined which is fine I mean I don’t mean to say it’s fine but I would like to see more of what we can more of the idea more of the design and again PAT MOORE : Well I’ll check with the pool company Bill was I guess he didn’t make it you know we’ll talk to him about how low we can bring it and still meet the pool MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Perhaps he can do the drawing for you I mean you know you never know I mean PAT MOORE : I will ask that would be best. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I mean they have to work off of something I mean the concept is okay this has to be this high when you first talk to a contractor you gotta tell him this is what I want to do and he’s someone needs to sketch. PAT MOORE : No I know what you’re asking for yea it will be an elevation it’s really an elevation of this structure. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : (inaudible) an elevation drawing section through that I’d like to just see a section through it so we can see how it going to look okay. PAT MOORE : Okay that’s fine. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That’s all I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Do you anticipate bringing in fill to elevate this do you need to build up the grade? PAT MOORE : Only if the Trustees allow us bring fill to like back fill the wall so that you can put plantings and so but it’s really being built the footings and everything are almost starting at grade or three feet below is the requirement for footings but I don’t it’s not bringing fill in to I mean that would be another alternative is to bring fill and put a pool on top of the fill but I think that creates problems. You may need some kind of retaining wall to keep the fill on site. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s too unstable very unstable. MEMBER HORNING : Well I thought you said you weren’t going to be excavating. PAT MOORE : No but it’s a question of whether or not you would prefer to bring the fill I don’t want to call it fill it’s the topsoil around the structure to be able to vegetate around it rather than leaving it exposed and planting at the grade at the base of the structure that’s another option. MEMBER HORNING : Where are you going to get this topsoil? PAT MOORE : Anywhere. MEMBER HORNING : What do you mean anywhere? PAT MOORE : Like off site. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no they buy it bring it in on site. PAT MOORE : Yea it’s not from the excavation itself it’s from off site. MEMBER HORNING : And how deep do you anticipate making that I mean the same depth as the pool five six feet? PAT MOORE : No. (someone speaking with Pat) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here imagine this it’s not hard for me to imagine. The pool has got to be think of a big concrete box six feet off the ground and at the top of the box is some slate for patio and inside the box is the swimming pool now who wants to look at a six foot wall right when they walk out through the fragmites to so they’re going to bring in some soil and they’re going to build it up against the wall so that all that pops out of that soil is two or three feet. MEMBER HORNING : You mean they’re going to have two or three feet of the pool exposed? ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Of the wall of the side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of the side of the retaining wall yes that’s got the patio and pool on top. PAT MOORE : You can cosmetically CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The point is this there’s a lot of drainage issues there I know you have a dry well for the pool proposed I don’t think there’s going to be an issue per say about a lot of these details. I think it’s the matter of our trying to understand the Board needs to really look at the consequences particularly since we’ve had experiences where it’s very difficult sometimes to read the intent and as a consequence we’ve seen houses go up on stilts that are like ten feet off the ground that we were not aware you know it just has a bigger impact than what PAT MOORE : Well that’s precisely what they’re trying not to do that’s why not at the same height as the existing deck otherwise you do end up with a very tall you know essentially what this deck is elevated you step it down CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Stepping down somewhat compromising from the bottom to the top. PAT MOORE : In between the kind of a compromise height between the height of the living space the deck of the house and raised above the you know on grade so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you can see why we really want to coordinate with the Trustees just simply because that way going forward decisions will be made in a way that is supportive and can address all of these various issues in a coordinated review so I agree I think the best thing Pat is for you to go ahead and apply to the Trustees. So they have a copy of the survey PAT MOORE : Oh so why don’t you let them know I’ll be putting in an application so hopefully right away I don’t know if I’ll make this meeting or not I think tomorrow may be their deadline so if I can get it in right away I will. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It help them anyway make comments that are useful to them as well as us and it expedites for you. PAT MOORE : Right and it would be a hearing so that they can understand what we’re proposing rather than really you know out of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I’m going to suggest we adjourn to the Special Meeting but we can always adjourn it again if things in two weeks are not ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I would say absolutely we’re going to need to adjourn it at least until the Trustees have an opportunity to see this so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you want to adjourn to a to September? PAT MOORE : I don’t want to re-notice. If it’s okay with you I just think to go to the Trustees I was either going to go after you or during so during is fine so September and then we’ll let you know when the Trustees have us on a calendar and that way you’ll know for the rescheduling. We’re probably towards the end of September but then you guys don’t have a meeting till October. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what I think we better do why don’t we just adjourn this to the October hearing and then you won’t have to re-notice, you won’t have to PAT MOORE : Yea let’s do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what I’m saying. PAT MOORE : I just know that the Trustees aren’t going to get It. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause September is really, really cut off already and PAT MOORE : Yea it wasn’t this year’s construction it was you know yea so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s just do that it makes more sense. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : There’s a lot going on here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea there is are you okay with that everybody? PAT MOORE : pardon. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I said there’s a lot going on here you know. PAT MOORE : No no I don’t disagree with you yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So why don’t we put this on for October you want to put it on for like 9:15. PAT MOORE : I’m sorry what? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : October 6 th 9:15 a.m. PAT MOORE : That’s fine. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just do it first thing in the morning. PAT MOORE : And by then I should be able to get you the cross sections so. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh that would be very helpful thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we’ll also it will also give us an opportunity when we get that information we’ll ask Jamie Richter to have comments on drainage. We often do that in a situation like this just so you’re aware of it. I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to October 6 th at 9:15 a.m. is there a second? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6974 – WILLIAM FROEHLICH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for William Froehlich # 6974. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15C, D & F and the Building Inspector’s April 21, 2016 amended June 13, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) proposed accessory garage located in the front yard on a waterfront property at less than the code required side yard setback of 20 feet, 2) exceeding the maximum permitted 750 square feet in total size, 3) proposed dormers to be installed on accessory garage exceeding 40% of the roof width located at 6130 Peconic Bay Boulevard (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Laurel. So it looks like the side yard setback is proposed at two feet where the code requires twenty feet. The accessory garage is proposed at 1032 square feet where the code permits a maximum of 750 square feet and the dormers exceed 40% of the roof width it doesn’t say by how much it just says exceeds it. Okay and this is proposed for a three car garage with a twenty two foot height. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting EILEEN SANTORA : My name is Eileen Santora I’m representing William Froehlich. You have the address 6130 Peconic Bay Boulevard Laurel New York. When we went back to the drawing boards to make the 40% for the dormers the dormer themselves are 40% the flying gables the roof which is the roof structure which hangs over the dormer that’s what is in the 40% which to keep the cottage look that I mean that’s required so after I did that and then I said oh no it still doesn’t we said let’s go for the over 40% but if we took off those flying gables the roof structure which is a foot that would make the 40% so the inside space of the dormers are 40% it’s the roofline that’s not but we wanted to keep that cottage look. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t know what cottage look means exactly but dormers are usually to provide light and head clearance for habitable space and this is proposed as storage. Well okay Eric hold on come closer here for one second. EILEEN SANTORA : So the roof line over here you see the flying gable that’s what makes the 40% the building itself these little dormers here that meets the 40% . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you mean you can’t cut back the overhang? EILEEN SANTORA : I could cut back the overhangs we could cut back but it just the look it would be ugly it would (inaudible) to keep that look (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let’s if you would go back to the mic please the podium and let’s ask this is a really huge variance that you’re requesting for the size, the size of the garage yea. EILEEN SANTORA : Our property is only 60 on the road and 50 on the waterside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that has to do with the side yard. EILEEN SANTORA : Right that’s why we have to keep the garage so close to the side yard the two feet. MEMBER DANTES : No, no the question is why can’t you build a code conforming size building? EILEEN SANTORA : Excuse me. MEMBER DANTES : Why not just apply for a code conforming sized building? EILEEN SANTORA : You mean a smaller garage? MEMBER DANTES : It’s not a pre-existing structure. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting EILEEN SANTORA : Well the problem is that the house is so small. We have no storage dry storage. They need it is a long piece of property. We need yard maintenance equipment we need car storage and we need dry storage and if you go down Peconic Bay Blvd. there are quite a number of these accessory garages already in existence. There’s 7600, 7800, 7480, 72901, 7020, 3300 those are all properties on Peconic Bay Blvd. have similar garages. Then there’s 5900 which is only three houses to the east of them to the west of them and then 6242 is to the east of them and I have photographs of those I have three photographs. MEMBER DANTES : Do these houses have variances or C.O.’s? EILEEN SANTORA : I don’t know if they had variances but you can see CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are a lot of accessory garages but EILEEN SANTORA : You can see CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we need to see what that property is and if there were variances granted for that. EILEEN SANTORA : This property is 874(inaudible) it’s east. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One second let me just let her finish and then absolutely. EILEEN SANTORA : These garages are in existence CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have the addresses on the back? EILEEN SANTORA : I have the address on this one. The address on this one the others (inaudible away from microphone) but I do know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You gotta talk into the microphone. EILEEN SANTORA : When I was riding along Peconic Bay Blvd. and I stopped and I took that’s why I had the addresses of different houses on Peconic Bay Blvd. that have accessory garages this large. Those are very close to my BOARD SECRETARY : And these are on Peconic Bay Blvd.? EILEEN SANTORA : Yes and they’re right those CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are the lot sizes of those are they sixty feet wide? EILEEN SANTORA : Yea they’re all very narrow lots. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well perhaps we need more documentation we need to find out whether they received variances or they were built before the code and so on. EILEEN SANTORA : (inaudible) I know is those addresses are very close to my property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we’re going to need you to kind of look into it a little bit more and find out whether or not the lot sized are the same and whether they’ve received any variances or if they were constructed legally with certificates of occupancy which you could find out easily in the Building Department. Okay now I believe someone in the audience had SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE : You asked the question I was going to ask. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright okay the intent it would appear the intent here is to is because the applicant wants to have a three car garage with storage on the second a second story storage. EILEEN SANTORA : Yes storage. MEMBER DANTES : So why not just add an attached garage to the house that would be a similar size I believe that would be code conforming. EILEEN SANTORA : Well as you get as you go closer to the house the property gets narrower and the garage would just cover the whole house. We are 133 feet from the road we start our new structure and we’re then 108 feet away from our house. If we attached it to the house you would take up the whole house because the house is only 32 feet wide and a garage has to be 24 feet wide. MEMBER HORNING : Is there a garage there now in the existing house? EILEEN SANTORA : There’s something MEMBER HORNING : Garage doors? EILEEN SANTORA : Yea there’s a garage door there but it’s not it’s just like a shed it’s not a garage. MEMER HORNING : Was it a garage at one time? EILEEN SANTORA : I guess years ago when this used to be owned by a priest I was told and he put a garage door in to make it easier access to this shed room. MEMBER HORNING : But it’s part of the house. EILEEN SANTORA : But it’s part of the house but it’s not a new car no car could get in it. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : May I ask another question? Looking at the Notices of Disapproval I have two of them with different dates amended ones I do not have the original I don’t think dated April 21 the reason I’m asking about that is because the one I do have says that it was amended after the applicant removed the proposed “living space” from the proposed accessory garage and removed the proposed additions and alterations to the single family dwelling from the application where is the original Notice of Disapproval? EILEEN SANTORA : I guess the Building Department has it. MEMBER HORNING : Would you submit that please. EILEEN SANTORA : The reason that what we hoped to do is after we have the garage done we’re able to take the furniture out put it in and we’re going to do remodeling of the house and we’ll be able to take the furniture out there and store it in the house. The Froehlich’s plan to move out here full time, their daughter goes to Stony Brook University nursing school. She lives there all the time so the house they’re going to redesign the house so we can have enough living space for everybody and to bring it up to date for today’s lifestyle. We’re not going to change the footprint of the house but we just need more storage that’s everything it’s about storage and being able to put its we’re asking for a three car garage and they have four cars. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the point is there are many people who collect antique cars out here and so on and many of them have requested large structures to support their hobby let’s say the bottom line is that’s not what justifies granting such a huge variance on a small piece of property with a two foot side yard. I understand with a narrow lot you need back up space for a driveway and all that kind of thing but those are enormous variances and there’s no hardship. You need storage you can build several you could put a couple you don’t have a lot coverage issue here you could put a couple you could put two storage buildings on there is you wanted to legally. EILEEN SANTORA : So you’re saying we could put two garages on here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You could put more than one accessory structure if you don’t exceed the lot coverage. EILEEN SANTORA : But we’d still have this side yard problem because the property is so narrow. MEMBER DANTES : I’m looking cause it’s twenty feet on each side that would be forty feet it looks like where the garage is proposed they only have about 54 feet from side yard to side yard. EILEEN SANTORA : Right. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know and there’ll be a lot of trees that would have to be cut also. There’s a bunch of cedar trees that are planted very methodically down that entire front of the property they’d all have to go that’s certainly true. MEMBER DANTES : Why does the garage have to be 24 feet wide? EILEEN SANTORA : Well because you can’t fit a car, a car needs at least twenty one feet for the car and you have to be able to walk around so a typical two car garage is 24 by 24 cause 24 the 43 is for three car garage. MEMBER DANTES : And you need the two foot setback to be able to make a turning radius if you had enough room on the other side (inaudible) EILEEN SANTORA : I mean really the twenty you’re asking the 26 feet to the property line to pull out of the garage that’s tight I mean my own house that I designed has thirty you know feet that you could pull out and make it easier. This is it’s a tight even with the two feet off the property line it’s tight to have a garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the way these setbacks work is you know the larger the structure the greater the required setback, the taller the greater the setback so if the structure is reduced in size then the side yard impact is lessened. EILEEN SANTORA : So you’re saying I’d be better off to build two 24 by 24? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I said that legally you could if you didn’t exceed the lot coverage put as many accessory structures on the property as you wish you know you can put them in the front yard because it’s a waterfront property but the bottom line is this is a major huge proposal and you know to just house cars in them because they happen to own them there are people that if they have cars they have antique cars they either make lean toos for them or they rent space to house them. EILEEN SANTORA : It’s not for collecting cars it’s just they have children and they have two children and two adults that’s four cars. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They don’t all have to be in a garage. EILEEN SANTORA : and there’s lawn mowers and there’s rototillers and there’s boats and equipment for the water they need to store it and they need storage for their winter clothes you know they need dry storage the house is damp as does not have no storage the house it’s an old house. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code was changed with regard to the size of accessory structures essentially to try and put something in scale in other words the idea is the smaller the property the smaller the structure okay the larger properties get larger structures, 750 is actually the largest for this sized lot. When you get bigger than that then you jump up to 3% of the lot size. EILEEN SANTORA : We’re 133 feet though off the road. You will not and he will replant and you will not see it from the road. I mean 133 feet is a lot of feet from the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if the Board has other questions but I think maybe some people in the audience might want to address the application alright should we do that first or do you have a question George? MEMBER HORNING : No I just want to ask again for the original Notice of Disapproval and I will reiterate one of my colleagues question as to did you consider attaching the garage to the house and eliminating some of this need for variances. EILEEN SANTORA : We thought of attaching the garage but as I say it you would not have it would take up the whole house cause its 24 feet and the house is 32 feet and then also we deal with cesspool problems. As you can see where the cesspools are in the center of the house is center of the property there so we had to stay far enough from the cesspools we couldn’t be on top of the cesspools so that was one of the problems too and the 133 feet from the road keeps it you won’t see it from the road and we’re 108 feet from the house. We’re clearing the cesspools and it’s not overpowering the house either cause otherwise it would just shadow the house. MEMBER HORNING : Thank you. EILEEN SANTORA : There’s trees all along to the west of the property, there’s trees all along that and an asphalt driveway so we’re not on top of the neighbor’s house and on the other side of our property you can see that there’s a brick garage that’s only four feet off the property line and some sheds. MEMBER HORNING : The cesspools that you mentioned aren’t they proposed? EILEEN SANTORA : No they’re their cesspools for the existing house. MEMBER HORNING : On the map here on the survey it says one of them is proposed future 50% expansion pool the other note says proposed eight foot by eight foot deep leaching pool. EILEEN POWERS : Well that’s for the runoffs of the roof. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : And there’s another one proposed 1500 gallon septic tank. These are all proposed on the survey. EILEEN SANTORA : Well they’re proposing to put new when they do the excavation and everything they know I mean these cesspools are really old and they’re not to code today’s code so they’re going to bring their cesspool system up to code so that’s what they’re proposing to re do the system and they’re also proposing for runoff for the roof structure of the garage for one dry well, one well and I think for also the runoff of the house because there’s no runoff the house now does not go into any drywell so that’s our proposal too cause we’re going to put on a new roof structure on the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So is there anyone in the audience come to the microphone please and state your name and spell it for us. DAN PALMIERI : Yes ladies and gentlemen of the Board good morning my name is Dan Palmieri with Keller (inaudible) in Woodbury New York. I represent Michelle Vento who is the owner of the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me sir can you just make sure you talk into the mic it’s being recorded for our transcription thank you. DAN PALMIERI : I’m sorry. I represent Michelle Vento who is the owner of the property immediately to the west of the subject property and we also happen to be a husband and wife not relevant to today’s proceedings but in any event Ms. Vento opposes this application for a variance on several grounds which I’ll state in a moment. She Michelle has owned the house for many years and prior to that her mother and father owned the house from in or about 1950 I believe so they’ve been the owner of that property for in excess of sixty years. The Ms. Vento does not oppose the neighbor’s right to build a garage if that proposed garage was in compliance with town code. The request to build this garage simply stated is a request for a garage that’s way too big, way too close to the side property line and also the request for the dormer and the height of the structure raises the suspicion that they want to build a structure that they could put an apartment on top of which is also supported by the fact that the survey shows that there are proposed new cesspools. There’s no reason on earth to add new cesspools for a garage unless it’s going to have bathroom facilities, kitchen facilities and so on. Let me also just respond to something else in terms of the presentation that was made in support of the request for the variance. With regard to the size of an automobile there’s no automobile available in America that is twenty one feet long. Automobiles generally are about sixteen feet long by about seven feet wide. Generally a two car garage is usually twenty by twenty feet. The request for the size of this garage is just way too large. The code allows 750 square feet which is a large garage in and of itself. We have in our home we have a two and a half car garage and ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting just and it’s large and we went out and measured it just to see it’s twenty four feet by twenty four feet and that holds all matter of lawn tools, two cars, a work bench on one side, a walk through so in other words twenty four by twenty four is a very large garage so that comes out to way less than 750 square feet. The point is that the request to build a garage of over a thousand feet is simply way too large. Now with regard to the setback the property setback the code says twenty feet from the side property line. They’re requesting to put this overly large structure two feet from the side property line. Now the Vento’s driveway goes down that side of the property and there’s the black top driveway and then there is a line of probably hemlocks or some type of evergreen tree that were planted there many, many years ago and those are all a couple of feet inside on the Vento property. Those trees for them to put a structure within two feet of the property line is going to affect those trees for one thing moreover it’s going to put this huge oversized structure between the applicant’s house and the street I understand that’s where it has to go but the point is it’s going to be a bit of an eyesore, it’s too large, it’s too close and we have suspicion about the reason to dormer make it so large in the first place and dormer it and so that is the basis for Ms. Vento’s opposition and as I stated to begin with if the application was to build a garage that was within code in terms of size and not two feet away from the property line. I do not believe that Ms. Vento would oppose that that’s all I have. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Come to the mic. MARY HOELTZEL : Good morning I appreciate you listening to me. I am not an attorney. My name is Mary Hoeltzel. I drove from Wayne Pennsylvania which is right next door to Villanova to be here for this hearing. I own two properties. I own 6105 Peconic Bay Blvd. which is across the street from where 6130 is located and on September 18, 2015 I purchased the home next to Ann and Bill Froehlich which is the brick structure the brick house that I think this lady spoke about. I have not concurred or had a lot of conversations with the Vento’s I just saw the sign I received paperwork and from my house at 6105 looking out across the street a structure of this size will clearly obstruct people’s view as we look out toward the bay. Secondly, I don’t see any reason I do share the suspicion that to have a garage and quite frankly if you look at the square footage of the house they have it’s almost as though this garage would exceed that square footage and I don’t see what the purpose of that is and I strongly believe that we should all abide by the code unless there’s some handicap or disability or some issue that affects a family that perhaps they need to obtain a variance. I see no basis for this variance whatsoever. In addition god only knows when they decide to renovate the home cause they’re doing this is two pieces what type of variance they’ll be looking for with respect to their home and my property that property that I purchased which is on the water has been grandfathered and we’re very close you know it’s it doesn’t abide by the twenty foot setback requirements but you know that was grandfathered and you know I purchased the home that way. It’s been like that ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting for many, many years so now we’re going to have this gigantic garage next door they’re going to be renovating the home on top of it on the other side of me the Hess family just sold their home and they’re going to be renovating their home and they have multiple structures on their property which do not conform to code either on my side of the property they basically are like right on my property line and my house is just going to be sandwiched in between all these oversized structures which are not abiding by code and quite frankly I think it’s going to result in causing a problem if I were to renovate my home and try to sell my home I think it’s going to have an effect on the value of the property. So you know I have no problem with this family building a garage I understand the need for a garage but I respectfully ask that they be required to follow the code. I plan on renovating my home. I plan on following the code and I think that that’s what all law abiding citizens should do unless there’s some type of family disability or hardship which would require someone to obtain a variance for special needs. So thank you for your time but that’s my perspective. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eileen would you like to address? EILEEN SANTORA : Yes I’d like to respond to the gentleman who was saying about size of garages. I don’t feel as a lawyer he is a professional in architecture or in construction to tell us the size of typical garages. Yes I said as it was that a typical two car garage would be twenty four by twenty four which he agreed. We’re only going for twenty four inches deep twenty four feet deep. The two feet of the property line is always going to be whether it’s twenty four by thirty the garage or twenty four by twenty four. We have to keep that two feet by the property lines so you can get in and out of the property. It is again 133 feet from the road. Some building lots in Southold aren’t 133 feet deep you will surely not see the garage and anything the gable end that you will see will be charming just like the house or not even a garage I can show you other garage structures that look like warehouses that’s why we did the dormers so that it would look sweet and charming. We’re maintaining the twenty two feet which is code. We’re not going any higher in roof height that code allows us. We’re dealing with a piece of property that is such an odd shape. The woman that bought the house next door with the brick house that is going that is against today’s zoning for her to do anything to the house she will need a variance because it’s against today’s zoning. Our house we are not changing the structure at all when we do remodel it is going to keep the same exact footprint. We are not going higher you know it will be the same we’re just going to bring it up to 2016 from a cottage that probably was built I think in the ‘20’s or the ‘30’s. The trees will not be disturbed at that and okay so then now that’s one issue and we talk about there’s trees and then the gravel driveway which has been made a comment about is not going to be disturbed, the footings for a garage only goes down three feet. SOMEONE SPEAKING : Those trees are going to be disturbed. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you have you’re going to have to talk to the Board. EILEEN SANTORA : I mean they’re her trees on her property and we’re on our property. We’re very much aware of those trees. We will not disturb those trees. There is not a house on that side. As I sited before there are multiple garage structures on Peconic Bay Blvd. two houses away from ours and one house two houses away from ours that have similar garage structures. We’re conforming to the historic look of our house and of the area as I say again we’re away from the main road that you won’t see it. Landscaping will be done. We are not making an apartment it is merely for storage. It is basically to store. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any intent to heat or finish the garage? EILEEN SANTORA : Never no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any intent to install any plumbing in the garage? EILEEN SANTORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just checking. Let’s MICHELLE VENTO : Hi I’m Michelle Vento as my husband said my attorney I’ve lived next door my family has owned the house next door for sixty five years. We’ve been coming out here, love the country and I feel this structure is very large, way too close to my property line. I feel it interferes with the country living that so many people come out here to enjoy which is why my parents built the home sixty five years ago and it will affect those trees that have been there they’re probably forty, fifty years old. I believe they’re cedar trees. They kind of narrow and then they go out for them to build that structure so close they’re probably going to have to cut those trees in half and they’ll probably die and just having all this construction equipment near those trees something’s going to happen and they’re going to get knocked over without a doubt in my mind and why he needs three cesspools I believe those little circles are or two cesspools and a dry well I’m not understanding that concept at all for the garage. If he wants to redo his home and put a nice garage in his home then that’s acceptable or if he wants to build a garage that’s to code that’s acceptable as well it’s just too large a structure for that property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you have questions Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I have a quick question for this Mrs. Vento just a question with respect to the trees I would have to agree two feet off the property line you know dig footings and stuff is going to probably upset the root system how far from the property line do you think would be safe for those trees that you have on your property? I know you’re not an arborist or but just ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MICHELLE VENTO : Maybe ten feet. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Maybe ten feet. MICHELLE VENTO : You know I don’t believe I’m asking for something you know outrageous I just you know like I said my parents bought this home for country living and to have a structure that close to my property line whether its near my home or alongside my driveway it’s just it just doesn’t you know appeal to me. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Do you have a garage on your property? MICHELLE VENTO : It’s attached it’s a ranch I have a ranch and we have a two car attached garage. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay so your garage doors are on the north side of your house I guess. MICHELLE VENTO : Yes. EILEEN SANTORA : How wide is your property? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to ask us Eileen you know that. MICHELLE VENTO : I’m sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you want me to ask her how wide her property is EILEEN SANTORA : Oh okay. Can you ask them how wide the Vento’s property is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s on the plat that we have what’s it say George? MEMBER HORNING : 120. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 120 feet. EILEEN SANTORA : Well that’s double the size of our property. MICHELLE VENTO : Well maybe your client shouldn’t have bought such a narrow piece of property then. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no, no, you can’t do that. MEMBER DANTES : You can’t do that. MICHELLE VENTO : Sorry. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look the point I’m trying to make Eileen is if you’ve discovered and we’ve driven around the neighborhood we see that there are accessory garages quite prevalent in the neighborhood what we need to know is you can do it right on that plat we’ve got a copy of the I’ll hold it up for you or George all you have to do is put down for each one of those that you found an accessory garage what is the size of the lot you know just label one two three four and your photographs one two three four and the size of the lot the width of the lot okay and the size of the accessory garage and whether or not it do that with a photograph whether or not it had a variance or it predated the zoning code. EILLEEN SANTORA : Well they’re new fairly new structures. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we have to address is character of the neighborhood. EILEEN SANTORA : They’re fairly new structures these structures you can see that they’re not old so they had to have gone through variances and been accepted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that’s what we need to find out and if they did you need to find out what the size of the lot is you see what I’m saying I mean if it’s a great big lot it’s likely that it’s possible (inaudible) structure was permitted. EILEEN SANTORA : They’re on the property line so very close to the property line like one I went to one and we measured it and it was four feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright anybody else in the audience wanting to address this application? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I just want to say a few more things if I may. Okay first of all I’m not in favor of that excessive size of what you’ve proposed. I understand the hardship that you have with the side yard setback. I think that has to be increased and that can be determined by the Board. Have you looked at the idea of possibly making a smaller garage or perhaps maybe two smaller garages perhaps 24 by 24 with an entrance from the north and maybe making another one with an entrance from the south which would and you could maybe possibly make a driveway along the western side or you can come in from the south and come in from the north. I’m not here to design your project but I think this might be an alternative. EILEEN SANTORA : Well we had our driveway from the western it was it’s existing from the western side. What we did is put the driveway in the center of the property thinking that it would be more appealing from the street with plantings and you know trees around and it wouldn’t be close to their property and it wouldn’t be close to the other neighbor’s property that they wouldn’t have you know cars going down a gravel road. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Do you know what I’m saying I mean if EILEEN SANTORA : You’re saying to keep the driveway where it is. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well I don’t really care where you put the driveway but I’m saying EILEEN SANTORA : It’s on the west side now. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Just for a hypothetical let’s say EILEEN SANTORA : If we had two I don’t mean to cut you off but if we had two MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You did okay now if you had two 24 by 24 and perhaps with an eight foot side yard setback with entrances from the north and from the south into those garages you could have plenty of room for a driveway for (inaudible) do you understand what I’m saying? EILLEEN SANTORA : If we just had two car garages two of them my personal opinion that would like a bungalow colony like a lot of little buildings. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay then just build one. EILEEN SANTORA : I mean I would that’s why we want one three car garage. MEMBER DANTES : Ms. Santora the point we’re trying to make is that there are ways to be more conforming to code. EILEEN SANTORA : Okay if that’s what but if we go eight feet off the property that leaves us only twenty feet in front to the east of the building so that blocks more of the view of the house. MEMBER DANTES : But it is more code conforming. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It’s a skinny lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are ways to design this there are multiple ways. What we try to do is look at whether or not the excessive size of the dormers are justified, whether or not the excessive size is justified and whether or not the minimal side yard very small side yard is justified and that’s it. We will make a determination and you’re going to have to take it back to the drawing board that’s all. EILEEN SANTORA : I want to understand. Do you want me to do the research in the town? ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I’d like to do is address the character of the neighborhood that’s the very first point we address in all the decisions and what you’ve told us is that from your point of view you have an argument that there are many very large accessory garages in the neighborhood that are either the same size property we don’t know until you tell us until you do that work, how big those garages are, where they’re located I mean if it’s you know the lots change in size along Peconic Bay Blvd. we know that area very well they’re many variances so it’s possible that there is a large old structure that was there for quite a while that was refurbished, redone I don’t know. We probably have granted some variances along there I know we have houses I don’t remember exactly if we did garages but that’s the information that will help your case. So I’m asking you to do that work if you wish to. EILEEN SANTORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that we can better evaluate it. It’s the applicant’s burden to make their case before the Board and that would be helpful. Short of that I can tell you that this Board has denied many, many applications for oversized garages because people had a lot of cars it just simply isn’t the way the code was written. Is there anything else from the Board at this point? Is there anyone else in the audience? Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of additional information regarding accessory garages in the neighborhood from the applicant’s agent. MEMBER HORNING : Leslie can we get a copy of the original Notice of Disapproval also? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please also include that. EILEEN SANTORA : Yea at the Building Department okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second? MEMBER SCNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6975 – C. & L. REALTY, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for C. & L. Realty, Inc. # 6975. This is a request for variance from Article XIII Section 280-56 and the Building Inspector’s June 8, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to demolish and rebuild a portion of an existing storage building at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 25 feet located at 61600 NYS Route 25, Main Rd. (adj. to Budd’s Pond, Southold Bay) in Southold. State your name please for the record. KATHERINE SEPNOSKI : Katherine Sepnoski I’m representing C&L Realty, Heron Suites is the business name. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we’ve all inspected the site. We’re looking at a portion of an existing storage building that was damaged by storms. It’s quite old. It’s got a side yard setback of one foot and of course the code requires twenty five and you are replacing this in kind are you the same exact size, footprint height everything? KATHERINE SEPNOSKI : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What’s it currently used for? KATHERNIE SEPNOSKI : Storage and we had to remove everything cause this particular section was damaged in Sandy which was ’12. I had Garrett Strang who is now retired from the community do an exact it’s the same exact design for repair and we put in an application and we also put in an application that same day in ’12 for a with the Trustees office. We were granted the permit by the Trustees however I was never able to secure the building permit. The reason for the setback one foot is the original property was split in half by the Morris family. They sold half of the property to Bill Witzki and his family for the marine basin as they had no water for their marina and my father and mother purchased the land side with the hotel to be an accessory benefit to the many customers who came out to go fishing so that’s the reason why it’s only and it was built when it was built in the ‘70’s with only the one foot at that time. We have been storing things in the main portion of the building which is concrete because it was above the area affected by Sandy however the large one large section of the storage the roof is still okay in there but we decided to remove things because the water was starting to leak towards the front the portion closest to the water again that was hit by the debris. There’s still a large section of Paradise Point building behind the marsh to the west of the property. We don’t know exactly what hit it because I did finally leave when the storm hit so we haven’t been ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting able to address it I went by the letter of the law and never touched the structure waiting and waiting and waiting to get permission to repair it. We’re at the point now that repair is going to be more costly and dangerous for whoever would be working on it than taking it down and rebuilding it in kind and it was used to store boats, jet skis, many marine articles as well as furniture and equipment during the course of its history. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And do you intend to use it that way now? KATHERINE SEPNOSKI : Absolutely. I also have cause I did see one of the inspectors and a random question was well the hotel looks great yes but the guests who check into the hotel which is the primary income that comes into this property to pay our taxes and to be a viable business in the community and support tourism. I have some of the trip advisory reviews which you know on the second page the second paragraph and I can share one with each of you is wow I pulled in and it was scary. I feel like I checked in to the Bates Motel in essence but once you meet the staff they are wonderful and the rooms are immaculate. I am just looking to not only have the use of the building back for that purpose but also to make the property whole because we have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the repair from Sandy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have a letter from the LWRP coordinator indicating that he’s determined that it’s consistent with the LWRP and you’re not increasing the footprint or the height just demo’ing and replacing in kind with exactly what was there. KATHERINE SEPNOSKI : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it’s to be used for the same business storage purpose primarily marine articles? KATHERINE SEPNOSKI : Yes. CHAIREPRSON WEISMAN : Okay questions Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : None. MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We’ll have a decision in two weeks. KATHERIN SEPNOSKI : Thank you very much and I appreciate you fitting me in the schedule it’s taken a long time to get to this point and I did just over hear you have travel plans I really appreciate that this can be heard before September as a matter of fact on Saturday a local person is having their wedding ceremony there so we’re trying to situate things so that that building will not be in the photographs for her but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A very large sheet. KATHERINE SEPNOSKI : Yea we thought about shrink wrap but there’s nothing to nail it to it won’t hold so thank you. MEMBER DANTES : Can I just make a comment Leslie. I just want to make a comment about the letter you wrote you’re saying here the Zoning Board has been instrumental in assisting owners in a kindly manner and ability to have a decision made during a private work session. That was a public work session. I just don’t want you to get confused cause it wasn’t it was a public work session that’s all. KATHERINE SEPNOSKI : I didn’t know because the terminology I know MEMBER DANTES : You start throwing words like private around a little KATHERING SEPNOSKI : I just meant closed. I think that’s the word I was probably looking for. MEMBER DANTES : It was an open session. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6977 – JOSEPH SBARRA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is Joseph Sbarra # 6977. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and Article XXII Section 280-116A and the Building Inspector’s May 19, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting building permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) proposed accessory in-ground swimming pool in other than the code required rear yard, 2) proposed accessory in- ground swimming pool is less than the code required setback of 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 3200 Cox Neck Rd. (adj. to Howard’s Branch of Mattituck Creek) in Mattituck. Hi Pat. Just enter your name would you. PAT MOORE : Yes Patricia Moore here for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we just got this from Soil and Water. PAT MOORE : Yea I just saw it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We I don’t think any of us have read it. PAT MOORE : It was very difficult very small print but yes I read it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but we haven’t. We’re up here doing other applications. PAT MOORE : Do you want a minute to read it before just so that you can cause then I can talk about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I think so can we do that Board members have a quick look at this we just this second got it to see what they have to say. While we’re doing that I just want to say that the pool location is proposed in a side yard where the code requires front yard or rear yard on waterfront properties and 72 foot bluff setback where the code requires 100 foot. Those are the two variances and let me have a look at this. Okay so LWRP is consistent and Soil and Water appears to say that the bluff is stable. They’re concerned about some runoff but the dry well being proposed should capture that additional drainage issue going over the retaining wall and down the side of the bluff and just be very careful of heavy machinery that’s all sort of standard commentary. PAT MOORE : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what would you like to tell us Pat? PAT MOORE : Well you’ve all been to the property. You could see this is a large piece of property. It is setback from Cox Neck and also actually setback quite far from the Mattituck Creek. We the definition of bluff I would not agree that this is a bluff. It’s more of a bank. We had to rely on the Building Department to give us their determination of where the top was because of the change in the code during the time that we were in the process of building this pool. I discussed or reviewed the location this was the most logical place because of the way this property is developed. The area that is between the two wings of the house this is the ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting grassy flat area. If you were to propose this pool to be relocated anywhere else whether on the west side it’s all a wooded very natural lot that it would create a great deal of disturbance and really is not a favorable location for this pool since most of the activity from the house itself is within this grassy area this flat clearing. I have Bill here he’s going to be building the pool and I thought it would be helpful for him to explain how this pool is going to be constructed so that with respect to the issue that Suffolk County raised regarding the existing retaining wall that way you can we’ll have on the record that the construction will in fact not create any disturbance to that side of the pool so Bill do you want to just explain to me how you explain to the Board what you explained to me. BILL BIRKMIER : Hello Bill Birkmier North Fork Pool Care. Our client’s proposing a gunite swimming pool. PAT MOORE : Wait, wait let’s make sure everybody’s listening. Are you guys having an issue? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted a copy of something that’s all. PAT MOORE : Do you need something? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we’re okay. BILL BIRKMIER : Our client’s proposing a gunite swimming pool. The way that gunite pool is built is we’re going to dig at water’s edge so the earth itself is what we shoot against on a gunite pool. It’s dry concrete and sand it’s mixed together at a gun and gets shot and that’s your concrete form into rebar. With that said you’re going to have a shell now in front of the retaining wall and if anything it would shore up the area even more and it’s going to be undisturbed from the ground is undisturbed between the retaining wall and what we’re going to be shooting against so we’re not going to dig to the retaining wall as I would if I was building a vinyl pool. So water’s edge now is actually ten inches further west and the pool will reinforce the retaining wall. There’ll be a shell there with six feet of earth between it so that should help with the comment that was made within that report of saying they’re worried about the retaining wall itself. If anything we’re going to reinforce it so to speak any questions on that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I think we know what a gunite most of everybody knows what a gunite pool is. PAT MOORE : You all know how it’s constructed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I think so. And you have a proposed dry well. PAT MOORE : Yes we have a proposed dry well and again this is the area that is already a lawn so ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I actually only have one question and that’s the possibility or the problems of a code conforming location in the front yard obviously not on the side where it’s all wooded and it’s sloped that’s not feasible but on the street side let’s say of the parking area there’s a large flat grassy area that would be very easy to build a swimming pool in. PAT MOORE : Aside from the aesthetics of putting there is a garage so you’d actually be building a pool in front of your garage the living space of the house you have the entrance but essentially most people want to have their pool and their as part of their recreational area which is in the back yard where the doorways are to the house, where the living areas of the house so unless a house is specifically designed to put a pool in the front yard most I think homeowners generally do not want a pool in the front yard unless it’s you know there really is no other place. In this case we have it we have the pool in the technical side yard but again it is the way this house is constructed as a center entry way and wings it is really the only rear yard of this house because and we’re also maintaining the existing setbacks of the house. We’re not going any closer to the water and I believe that’s why we got the consistency opinion from LWRP in that the house does not the pool does not extend beyond that. So I think for other you know I think logical reasons is aesthetic is well as just functionally this property would not it would not suit any homeowner to put a pool in a front yard here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want in the record Pat to ask the question. PAT MOORE : No that’ fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Questions Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : How far is the house the existing house setback from the (inaudible) PAT MOORE : From the top of the bank is the same 72 actually it’s a little closer because of the way the bank cuts back and it looks like just never have a straight line so the bank has somewhat of an angle that runs along the it runs parallel to the Mattituck Creek so you see how it’s somewhat closer where the house is the pool is actually setback. MEMBER HORNING : Are the Trustees involved in this one? PAT MOORE : They will be yes. They shouldn’t have an issue because the really we’re dealing with the tidal wetland distance and that’s at 107 feet the top of the bank again that’s a relatively new code provision so I’m hopeful that the Trustees will find this to be a reasonable application. ?? August 4, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else George? MEMBER HORNING : Other than an alternative location which you explored already PAT MOORE : Yea and there really isn’t an alternative location. MEMBER HORNING : Well there is. PAT MOORE : Well you’d have to destroy a lot of or you’re talking about the front yard? MEMBER HORNING : Yes. PAT MOORE : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I mean if you’re going to put it anywhere other than the front yard that’s the only reasonable place to put it but you know you have to look at adverse impacts and all the other stuff. If there aren’t numerous adverse impacts then it’s a feasible thing to do relative to the functioning of the living space and so on. PAT MOORE : Right I think putting a pool in a front yard on this property would definitely devalue the property because you’d be putting a pool in what is a parking area so it functions as that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything else from anybody? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ??