Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/01/2016 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 September 1, 2016 9:35 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES – Member GERARD GOEHRINGER – Member GEORGE HORNING – Member KENNETH SCHNEIDER – Member KIM FUENTES – Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY – Town Attorney ? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Raymond Raimondi # 6957 3 – 5 Vincent Illuzzi # 6980 5 - 13 Debra Coritsidis # 6984 14 - 20 Joseph and Maureen Coogan # 6963 20 -21 Rivka Schoenfeld # 6978 22 - 26 Anthony and Sarah Nappa # 6979 27 - 29 Todd and Mary Hamilton # 6981 29 - 33 Virginia and Michael Bontje # 6982 33 - 42 Rafael and Francoise Crandall Ferrer # 6983 43 - 51 ? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6957 – RAYMOND RAIMONDI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : First application before the Board is for Raymond Raimondi. This was re-opened per the applicant’s request. Let’s see I guess I should read that read it into the record again. Let me say on the record that member Schneider has recused himself from this application and has left the dais and is leaving the room. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s February 23, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to demolish existing dwelling and construct new single family dwelling at 1) proposed construction places existing accessory garage in location other than the code required rear yard and 2) the “as built” accessory shed is less than the code required side yard setback of 20 feet located at 1150 Mason Drive (adj. to Haywaters Cove) in Cutchogue. Good morning is someone here to represent the application? GAIL WICKHAM : Good morning my name is Abigail Wickham and I’m here on behalf of the Raimondi’s. We would like to present and we appreciate the additional hearing opportunity in order to present additional documentation on the structures on this property. We would like to first of all incorporate the prior hearings record into this hearing as well as the request and the documentation submitted by the applicant on his request for a rehearing which included a letter and photographs. Therefore simply what we’re doing today is asking you to amend your record and reaffirm the approval of the variance on the garage which became which was a conforming structure and became non-conforming only because the Trustees asked that the house be set back to a location where the garage was non-conforming so we appreciate that decision and hope you will reaffirm that based on the facts that were submitted at the hearing nothing has changed with respect to that structure. We would also like you to revise your decision with respect to the boat shed because since the hearing we have obtained a certificate of pre-existing use from the Building Department. I have that here and will hand that in. It was dated August 31, 2016 and it certifies that the C.O. the building was pre dated the zoning code therefore the three foot setback would be a moot point. We are that Pre-C.O. was issued and we also have submitted to you quite a bit of documentation on neighbor letters including one from Audrey Horton which I believe you have a supporting letter from the Abrams who are the neighbors and we have a letter here from Pam Lewyn Samano who happens to be the granddaughter of Roy Reeve and the daughter of Priscilla Lewyn who lived at the property or visited with her parents at the property as a child and always remembers the boat house on the property so I’ll submit that to you as well for the record. The boat sheds are a historical part of the Cutchogue portion of Peconic Bay and its creeks. I believe Mr. Raimondi presented photographs of some of them in the immediate vicinity of this area. My particular favorite is what used to be the Tuthill house on Schoolhouse Creek where on the second canal there are ? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting several on Nassau Point and there are they were a historical part of the waterfront access to the bay and the creeks so I think this is in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. Wolf who is also here today has a certificate of occupancy for the garage which I’m not sure was in the record Mr. Weber I’m sorry please strike that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you I think we have the C.O.’s anyway but yea we have the garage from previous GAIL WICKHAM : But we wanted to be clear that that was a previous so we’d like to therefore ask that you approve the variance for the garage and ask whether you would consider at this point the application for the variance on the boat shed as moot and I have this Pre C.O. right here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Gail. Does the Board have any questions George? MEMBER HORNING : No other than in our decision we granted I’m reading it here we granted the variance as applied for, for the accessory garage. I (inaudible) issue of the shed again it was a renew issue with the garage? GAIL WICKHAM : No the garage is the same as it always has been. It’s the boat shed that’s up next to the creek the Board denied the variance on but we don’t believe a variance is now required because we have a Pre C.O. I just want to confirm that that is your understanding as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think had the Pre C.O. been submitted on the first go around we wouldn’t be sitting here today however what we’ll have to do is either write another decision or we will amend the existing one and whether if it’s a new one we will include the garage. If it’s an amended one we’ll simply add the date of this hearing we can do it either way I’ll check with counsel but we will consider the information we’ve just now received on the shed. GAIL WICKHAM : Okay so my question is then should we continue with additional testimony in order to establish that point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you established it in many different ways as far as I can see. I don’t see that T.A. DUFFY : The Pre C.O. says it all. GAIL WICKHAM : Well that’s my feeling but I want to be sure that there is an understanding on that. ? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s a town blessed legal document in addition to lots of testimony from neighbors with historic references and so on and I don’t think there’s a the Board has concerns now. I guess in general things are when they can become conforming the Board’s tendency would be to make them conforming but if they were pre-existing non- conforming then they are grandfathered so GAIL WICKHAM : Good and I know the applicant will be delighted because of the potential cost to move the boat shed which he submitted testimony on it and I don’t know if he mentioned there are four large trees that would also have to removed so this will be a very good result for the property and the neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good okay is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Someone go get Kenny. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6980 – VINCENT ILLUZZI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Vincent Illuzzi # 6980. This a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector’s June 2, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legalize an “as built” wood deck addition attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) “as built” wood deck addition is less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 1615 Fleetwood Rd. (adj. to East Creek) in Cutchogue. ? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Good morning Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Illuzzi. I have here in with me Mr. Illuzzi the owner. I also have Angel Chorno who helped me with doing some drawings “as built” drawings that were submitted to the Building Department early on in the process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before you carry on Pat I just want to make sure did you get a copy you may not have PAT MOORE : No I actually thank you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got? PAT MOORE : Yep we made it I just showed it to my client as well so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine alright cause I want to address that carry on. PAT MOORE : Yea alright I want to begin with just explaining where we are with this application, the existing house, the existing additions, the existing deck all have C.O.’s. They were issued the original house is a pre-existing but the house was significantly expanded in 1980 by a prior owner Mr. Scavone and again in 2006. The Trustees issued a permit cause at the time there was no ZBA jurisdiction and the original house did not require the Trustees in 1997 the Trustees approved what was there. Mr. Illuzzi purchased the house and transferred all the permits that is the permits that it required transferring which are the Trustees permits into his name in September of 2015 after he purchased what (talking with client) well alright whenever it was he transferred the permits I have a copy of it I may have misread the date. What occurred is that as typically happens with anyone of our houses as the 1980’s renovations start getting older you have to start making improvements what he did was he took the existing deck and was replacing the wood the cedar whatever wood the natural wood with trex. That work was being done in accordance with typical maintenance repairs and Gary Fish came by stopped the job and said hey you need a permit. I think most of us would believe that when you’re making repairs you don’t need a permit but so nonetheless rather than well we tried to discuss it with Gary. I prepared a letter to Gary Fish with the original approved plans, the original construction that was on file with the Building Department and pointing out that the repairs that were being made were in fact also fixing things that were supposed to have been constructed under the permit that is some footings we gave him photographs of footings that were put underneath the deck that were barely a foot in width and depth. Those needed to be replaced with proper footings so we gave all this to Gary Fish in an effort to fine we’ll get a building permit for “as built” building permit. When it was reviewed by Gary ultimately he didn’t respond and we well again we had the drawings done Angel prepared the drawings and the Building Department said well you need an updated survey. So the survey was the existing survey nothing had been done however the Building Department wanted an updated survey. ? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting We had to get Peconic Surveyors out there it took whatever time Peconic Surveyors took to get a survey. We prepared the survey and submitted it. All of this in an effort to prove to the Building Department that this is a structure that had a C. of O. we’re doing repairs can we move on? Well, again like most things when you get bogged down in the process the we had the building permit application pending and as it turned out because there was some rocks down at the bottom of the creek type of retaining structure at the time the zoning code required setbacks from bulkheads or manmade structures so we submitted the drawings, submitted it to Chairman Weisman to Leslie and at that point it was determined well the code is being changed so the Building Department and I both were watching how code revisions were being made. I participated or sat through some of the code committee meetings and it was our understanding that the code was being the setback from bulkheads and marine structures or manmade structures were being removed from the code and the only jurisdiction would be the Trustees. As time progressed the code was changed however to the Building Department and my surprise the code when it was revised left in banks did not define banks and now the Board has jurisdiction from a top of a bank rather than I believe what was originally intended was retain the Zoning Board jurisdiction from bluffs because those are again on the Long Island Sound and issues that have been in place for a very long time. Banks when you’re dealing with creeks are generally heavily vegetated we’re not dealing with steep slopes, we’re dealing with just natural slopes of the in the community. That’s not where we are today. The code still is I believe still being discussed but for now this Board has jurisdiction from a top of a bank. Clearly we have a bank here. It is a very heavily vegetated bank and again we’re dealing with the repairs to a previously C.O.’d structure. The deck was repaired and made more conforming more conforming to the original building permit when the building permit was originally issued it went it was the construction was supposed to follow the plans. Again apparently it wasn’t caught but the footings were inadequate. When a homeowner is making repairs you don’t leave inadequate structure behind you fix it and that’s where we are so here we are today under a code that has made this application significantly non-conforming because this is a bank that is a few feet from the existing house but again the house was built there the additions were built there the renovations were done all under previous codes and we are here to request if you believe that after you’ve reviewed all the documentation that a variance is still required given the fact that this was a repair and again our code says that if you replace more than 75% of the structure then you have to follow what current codes require. That was not the case here and that was not the case here from day one. My client has now held up the whole thing and the Soil and Water pointed out that there are no banisters, there’s no protection on the second floor deck and because my client has been for the most part afraid to do anything here he put in temporary ropes just to provide some form of banisters at the edge of the decking but we’d like to finish the project, have a properly constructed existing deck and move on you know a year later at great expense but here we are and happy to answer Soil and Water ? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting made certain recommendations. There are dry wells on this property. They were constructed originally two dry wells one on each side of the house. What we can do is connect the down spouts for the existing into those drywells so that’s not a problem. As far as the irrigation the irrigation lines spray to the shrubs towards the house and there is no need to remove that they are actually directed away from the bank. If anything when you’re dealing with vegetated banks fresh water irrigation actually brings I would disagree with their analysis yes you can have erosion when you’re dealing with sandy soils of a bluff but when you’re dealing with on the creek actually irrigation really helps keep the vegetation very lush as is evident right now the condition of the bank is extremely heavily vegetated and natural vegetation nothing (someone talking) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m sorry you’re going to have to PAT MOORE : I’m sorry if you’re going to testify you’ve got to come here and put it on the record nope come here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s okay Pat we’ll hear whatever you want us to know but you have to be recorded. PAT MOORE : He’s going to clarify my vegetation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to state your name for the record. VINCENT ILLUZZI : My name is Vincent M. Illuzzi 1615 Fleetwood Rd. Cutchogue New York and I am the owner of the structure under consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you just move the mic up a little bit you’re a little taller than Pat so we can hear you a little better. VINCENT ILLUZZI : The only comment I wanted to make about the vegetation is I remember reading in some of the documentation that I received when I purchased the home that the vegetation that is there and I’m not sure exactly which one it is is vegetation that was recommended that he put there from the D.E.C. state of New York because at the time when the revetment or the stones were put there it was some issue I don’t recall I don’t know what the issue was that was the prior owner but I do remember reading that that was vegetation that was prescribed by the State of New York to be planted there. I just wanted to make that comment and I think that Pat also made the comment that I’d like to just reiterate it just to be clear when I started this project a good portion of the existing structure is still there. Most of the floor joists on the second floor deck, the screened in porch, the footings were not supposed to be replaced but unfortunately they’re basically not much more than a paint can in size. I have a photo on my phone if you would like to just take a look at them if you haven’t already ? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting seen them in there. So at that point I have probably three to four days of work to complete this project and that’s when Gary Fish came over and stopped it. As far as the railing on the second floor deck we haven’t been using the second floor deck because that railing is missing. It is a safety hazard to fall twenty feet down to the ground but I was told by Gary Fish that I would be in court if I touched anything so the only thing that I did was put a rope up on the second floor on the first floor deck just as a visual aide for people who would be on the deck to say hey you know there’s no railing here. So that’s the reason why it’s not because I didn’t want to do it or didn’t want to put it up there. I was told that I would be in court rudely so by the way I remind you that if I touched anything I was going to end up in court so that’s why that railing is not there. PAT MOORE : I do have a photograph of the former footings so I’ll put that on the record. I believe you may have it in your packet but I’ll provide. It’s those cylinders (away from microphone) We’ll answer any questions you might have. This is pretty straight forward it’s just we MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have a question. Regarding the footings because when you discovered the inadequate footings and that required you to replace all of the superstructure underneath and the joists and everything cause you had to (inaudible) correct? PAT MOORE : Well I don’t go ahead if you’re are you asking whether he did not replace all the underlying structure. He what’d you do bolster up some of the existing structure in order to replace the footings? VINCENT ILLUZZI : Majority of the structure for the main deck has been replaced. A good portion of it is totally intact. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh okay so the existing footings just weren’t deep enough and they weren’t VINCENT ILLUZZI : Well if you take a look at those footings I don’t know if that picture is maybe not may not be able to tell scale but the footings are about the size of a paint can. I was not about to put that weight on the size of a paint can that just makes no sense to me. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So they would just on the ground they weren’t dug into like VINCENT ILLUZZI : No, no they were dug in about that much. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh so they were VINCENT ILLUZZI : And there was no way to tell I mean when you looked at that you saw that there was a footing there so we’re good but then on you know when you go to put the cap that ? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting you’re going to put your support structure on and you look at it and you just pull it up it’s like holy cow that was not part of the original plan believe me when I tell you. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So what did you replace them with? VINCENT ILLUZZI : Twelve by three foot footing which is what the code recommends. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay thank you. MEMBER HORNING : I have a question regarding the footings too. The picture that you submitted with the three of them together is that they were clustered right there? VINCENT ILLUZZI : Oh no, no, no that is an individual footing. I retained some of them and some of them I threw away because what was I going to do with them? MEMBER HORNING : Well I mean was there one you’re kind of describing one in each or was the footing that clustered? VINCENT ILLUZZI : No, no it wasn’t clustered. MEMBER HORNING : So you just happen to move one to there is that what happened. PAT MOORE : Wait, wait you’re going to need get onto they’re going to have trouble transcribing if you don’t speak on the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George he threw those away those were just on the side as an example of what he removed. MEMBER HORNING : Okay. Did you alter or change or expand the original footprint as it was in 1980? VINCENT ILLUZZI : No the deck is actually smaller. It’s actually smaller than it was I took a corner off on one side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Yes do you have a copy of the building permit from 1980 or do they are there any plans on file? PAT MOORE : Yea they were ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : At the Building Department? PAT MOORE : Yea. I pulled out the original building permit MEMBER DANTES : I don’t think I have it in my packet do I? PAT MOORE : They should be in your packet oh you know what I had the original 1997 drawings because it included the deck. MEMBER DANTES : Can you submit those? PAT MOORE : Yea. I thought you had it because MEMBER DANTES : I have the C.O.’s. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have the C.O.’s but not the permits. PAT MOORE : Oh alright here’s I mean I can give you seven copies or I can give you mine now whatever you prefer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don’t you just submit the seven copies today sometime to the office. PAT MOORE : Okay no problem. MEMBER DANTES : I think that would clear up a lot of things. PAT MOORE : What you’re going to see on the 1997 plans that’s the original expansion that was the waterfront expansion and it shows at least from what I can tell these are the most busy plans I’ve ever seen but it shows the original structure and the reason I could tell is the cross section on A4 shows the decking that was constructed and the enclosed porch. Then the 1980 I’d have to go to the Building Department. I don’t think I have I was looking in my file right before I came here and I think they just gave me the C. of O. not the that shows I believe in 1980 was the front addition so I’ll give you the plans that the town has that’s all. MEMBER DANTES : Which C.O. number was 1997? PAT MOORE : 1997 is let’s see I have multiples here there’s a Pre from ’95 then addition in ’82 you know it could be that the drawings are from ’97 cause then the deck addition to the existing dwelling is ’80 so it would make sense that the construction would take that long. MEMBER DANTES : You got a C.O. in 2003 in I just PAT MOORE : We got multiple C.O.’s yea. ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Yea if you could just correlate a C.O. number with the drawing. PAT MOORE : Sure what I can do is pull the Building Department files I think that’s easier and attach the drawing to the C. of O. that would clarify things. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you want the building permit the original building permit for the deck is that what you’re saying? MEMBER DANTES : She’s got the drawing (inaudible) PAT MOORE : I have one of the drawings that gives the entire house so but if you want the individual C.O.’s cause Scavone the prior owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don’t need any more C.O.’s he just wants MEMBER DANTES : I just want the C.O. number that correlates to that particular drawing. PAT MOORE : Okay alright I can do that. MEMBER DANTES : I think that’ll make things nice and simple and PAT MOORE : Alright well I’ll just double check the town’s the Building Department records just to be safe. MEMBER DANTES : And if you go back to 1980 sometimes the plans go yellow. PAT MOORE : Well the Building Department would have everything in the computer so yea that’s how I got CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’ll make it even easier why don’t you just submit whatever the Building Department has on record. PAT MOORE : I think I’m going to do that anyway so I don’t have to guess what CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then you don’t have to worry about coordinating them we’ll do it. PAT MOORE : That’s fine I will do that not a problem. MEMBER HORNING : I’m confused because the survey that we have shows like anywhere from 15 foot 3 inches, 15 foot 9 inches distance from the deck to the top of the bank let’s call it 15 feet they’re siting you for 14 feet so I mean that’s why I’m asking whether or not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s plus or minus George. PAT MOORE : No it’s yea ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING : Yea it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they’re giving us an approximate average. MEMBER HORNING : So if the deck is reduced in size PAT MOORE : But it was reduced only on the corner. It wasn’t the actual deck was not reduced in depth. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The setback (inaudible) PAT MOORE : It was just you asked is it identical and it is identical in depth just a corner was rather than a square it he did a little cut of the corner so in fact it was reduced some but not to the extent that your jurisdiction would impact. MEMBER HORNING : And a cut on the corner was shown on the latest survey? PAT MOORE : Yea that would be the drawing that you have yea. MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody else? Is there 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 subject to receipt of Building Department records. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6984 – DEBRA CORITSIDIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Debra Coritsidis # 6984. This a request for variances from Article III Section 280-13 and Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s May 18, 2016 amended May 23, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and to legalize an “as built” accessory wood shed at 1) additions (observatory) to an existing single family dwelling proposes more than the code required maximum two and half stories, 2) the “as built” accessory wood shed located at less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 55 feet, 3) “as built” accessory wood shed located at less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet located at 265 Orchard Lane (adj. to Dryad’s Basin) in Southold. Good morning would you please state and spell your name for the record. CHRISTINE BRYSON : Good morning Christine Bryson architect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you spell your last name please. CHRISTINE BRYSON : (Spells name) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright do you have any of the green cards that you can thank you. CHRISTINE BRYSON : So my client just built rather bought the house a year or so ago. They moved in recently and they want to do a lot of interior renovations. It’s built in 1968 sort of a dated house that was never updated at all. We started out you know looking at the survey that it was a one story house with a walk out basement. We’re adding a little bit here and there. They came up with a great idea they wanted an observatory it’s such a nice view to see a little bit over the trees and the water. The client’s retiring in the near future picturing his space upstairs so we you know put this in as a permit not realizing it would need a variance for that. It is within the height limitations. It’s just you know we’re trying to work with these existing structures so many of the neighboring houses have big tall peaks you know ten and twelve with a lot of dormers up on the you know theoretically third story so we’re similar height to all those or even less I think 24 feet height on one side on the private side and 30 feet on the water side so we’re you know we’re just trying to get a little bit of space you know elevate the house a little bit for better views it’s sort of a squat house is you look at it it’s very low on the ground. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we’re looking at we observe the shed of course and found out that this is not actually accessible through Orchard St. you have to go down Cedar and come up a private right of way or driveway along the property by the way just so you know we’ve all ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting visited the site and inspected it. Let’s look at the shed first. The shed is has to meet because it’s waterfront event though the driveway separates the water’s edge from the dwelling. You need a side yard setback of 20 feet required by code and you have 17.7 and a front yard setback of 55 feet and you have 18.6 however the shed is not very visible at all from Orchard St. CHRISTINE BRYSON : Not at all it’s a very private it’s a rear yard but that would be you know front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it’s an oddly shaped parcel too which makes the determination of front, rear yard side yard a little more complex. With regard to the observatory just going to find the plan here you’re looking at what size is this proposed room? CHRISTINE BRYSON : It’s about 12 by 12, 12 by 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it’s 13.4 by 12. CHRISTINE BRYSON : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m just looking on the plans. This is conditioned space I take it. CHRISTINE BRYSON : Yes. You know they want the nautical look to it really just a little bit of a view to the beach across the way. We did also file with the NYS for the sprinkler code just so you know so if this was passed you know to see whether we cannot put sprinklers throughout the house or maybe just in that space. When I started working with him he gave me one or two parameters to meet a two story versus a third story and this house did meet that the average grade from upper floor to average elevation is only 5 ½ feet which is under the 6 feet and less than 40% is too far from the grading elevation. The only thing that would not immediately get around that variance for the NYS is that the last five feet or so at the waterfront is a lower elevation so that’s what makes it a third story where I’d have to get a NYS variance as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay because the Board does not grant anything that’s deemed by our Building Department to be a third story unless A) it’s sprinkled per state code and B) it is not sleeping space. CHRISTINE BRYSON : Okay it’s not it’s too small. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a very small area it doesn’t even meet well it just meets the definition of a room by code size wise. Let’s see what else let’s see if the Board has anything to add to ask here George you want to start? MEMBER HORNING : When was the shed built? ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHRISTINE BRYSON : That looks like it’s a long time ago. It’s pretty old wood structure. I would say twenty years maybe just looking at it. My client has been here for a year so I don’t have. I guess they didn’t have a permit for that right? MEMBER HORNING : Right and other than potentially a sprinkler set up in that observatory space there’s no other plumbing or kitchen thing, bathroom anything? CHRISTINE BRYSON : No and it’s got a circular stair in it as well so it’s even smaller than 12 by 13. MEMBER HORNING : So you don’t envision anybody going up there and hoping on a bed and going to sleep things like that? CHRISTINE BRYSON : Definitely not. The customer is head of the ER at one of the hospitals and he works like a dog he’s hard to get so I think he’s just envisioning a nice space to go up and be able to relax. MEMBER HORNING : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Was there any other architectural process that you could of used other than an observatory? CHRISTINE BRYSON : We did look at a lot of things. We looked at going out on one side and all the septic systems were there we didn’t want to go out on the beach side and we only went out a little bit on the rear side because the driveway was there so we were trying to find you know a space for a small just for a little you know relaxing room. It’s a nice house with you know walled glass looking out but it is it’s very squat actually. The ceilings are low even on the upper floor seven foot plate height so it’s a very squat house you know so they were just trying to you know it’s such a beautiful area and they don’t have as good of a view as they were hoping. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The reason why I ask that question is we have granted one or two of these that are water view similar to this one and what they in effect actually did was do a pop out out of the roof as opposed to a secondary structure attached to the house or I mean it’ll be a (inaudible) CHRISTINE BRYSON : Yea we did have that originally. It just was so complex the structure I mean we could move it back in if that’s really what’s preferred but it’s all cathedral spaces in there so it was tough to sort of pull that off and the whole house is very open to have that in the middle of it we found it hard you know even to get like we would have had to push the observatory up ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting a little higher so you could see above the ridge you know if it was in the middle. We’re going for that look we just pulled it out a little bit so you know MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay thank you. MEMBER DANTES : Can you just repeat how close is it graded to the point where it wouldn’t be considered a third story by code? CHRISTINE BRYSON : You know eighty percent of the site it isn’t so it’s only the last you know it’s the water line suddenly dips off so it’s really on the last five feet or so of waterfront where it makes it a third story so everything else surrounding the house you know a hundred feet in all directions is all makes it a two story that even the surveyor called it a one story with a walk out because it’s just what it feels like it is. MEMBER DANTES : Right but by code it’s a percentage what’s the percentage that’s two story what’s the percentage of one story? CHRISTINE BRYSON : It was forty two percent of the grade elevations were six feet below the first floor. So if it’s greater than fifty percent then it would be a third story. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re saying it’s forty two? CHRISTINE BRYSON : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : You missed it by eight percent. CHRISTINE BRYSON : Actually that’s a good that’s showing that we’re eight percent you know into the right direction that we are only a two story but it’s only the last the only other qualification was it can’t be twelve feet below the lowest grade elevation so at the water it is thirteen, fourteen feet. It’s just that those last few feet MEMBER DANTES : My other question is and I know that they exist you pull the variance the prior variances for similar applications. I don’t know if there’s any in this specific neighborhood but there are some in the town. CHRISTINE BRYSON : Okay. I have not looked into that I’m not even sure how to search that. I would MEMBER DANTES : I think they can help you in the office. CHRISTINE BRYSON : Okay. ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s talk about the shed for a minute. Ken do you have questions before I do that? MEMBER SCHNEDER : No I’m fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to put something in the record regarding the shed. Before we do that clearly we will condition based on what the Building Department’s Notice of Disapproval said the non-habitable and so on aspects of the observatory and sprinkled per state code and if you obtain a variance that goes away. Tell us a little bit about why the shed should stay where it is and not be moved. CHRISTINE BRYSON : I mean it is in a very sort of remote area on the site. It’s all trees around it so it’s buried in the shade area on you know it’s they sort of use it as a rear yard it’s called the front yard there. I think it’s just an older piece of building on the site which is why they kept it. It’s a real old shed. I’m trying to think of where else they could it would have to be moved somewhere else on that front yard so that probably wouldn’t be advantageous to the code it would you know the same issues. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it would certainly be a lot more visible does the applicant have access to Orchard St do they use it? CHRISTINE BRYSON : No. It’s all green there so I don’t think they can I think it’s a fence there they don’t use it at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right so there is no actual access to that frontage? CHRISTINE BRYSON : No and similar pictures I took you can see it really is very shaded I mean you can barely even see any of the neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything else from the Board? Is there 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 do you want this subject to receipt anything or just MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) variances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there aren’t really in that area there are in town but is that relevant you think? MEMBER DANTES : Better have them than not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean for what third stories or for (inaudible) ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Third stories. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don’t know if we’ve had any observatory third stories have we? We had sitting rooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mostly but well their viewing areas they weren’t called observatories one was in an attic MEMBER DANTES : One was a bathroom. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : There’s one in Greenport. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that’s a third story entirely that was just it was below the yea I mean I recall pretty much all of them and I don’t know that they really the only thing that would carry over would be the fact today it has to be sprinkled and be its non-habitable with no plumbing you know no cooking and so on and that’s kind of standard. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Relatively speaking the location of this proposed observatory is actually (inaudible) second floor location because the contour of the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is mitigated by that I mean it is essentially below the height although some of the others were (inaudible) I mean they were tucked into MEMBER DANTES : There are two by MaCabe’s Beach and they were kind of similar with they were on a slope and they had the walk out basement and they just kind of missed the percentage to be two story and there was one on Mattituck on Bergen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you already know them. MEMBER DANTES : Yea I just don’t have the file in front of me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright if it’s important to get it maybe we’ll have our office do it for you because it’s complicated for someone who doesn’t know how to use laser fiche and Municity and so on and we have a way of accessing in the office variances for third stories Liz and Lu will remember or if any of you remember the names we just pull up the names. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I can just give you the block. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well then if we do find some that would be relevant then we should send a copy to the applicant then they can give them time to ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure I just don’t think it makes sense given the fact that it’s spread out all over the town and I don’t know that it’s indexed by variance type. It’s indexed by the Suffolk County tax map number or the application number or the applicant’s name but it’s not going to be the easiest thing in the world to find so for our background we want office staff to provide us with some common denominators on that so that we don’t hold the applicant up. Fair enough? CHRISTINE BRYSON : Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so my motion was to close the hearing reserve decision subject to staff research. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6963 JOSEPH and MAUREEN COOGAN MACHINE WAS NOT ON TO TAPE THE BEGINNING OF THE APPLICATION FRED WEBER : you know beyond that bearing wall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay just wanted the record to reflect some reasoning for this because it seems so small that I just want to make sure that the record explains some justification for the .6% that’s all. Let’s see if the Board has any questions. Gerry? ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Not at this time thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING : I don’t have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just made your day. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Don’t get used to this Fred. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea exactly (inaudible) just so you’re aware this is a free pass. Alright anyone else in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6978 – RIVKA SCHOENFELD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Rivka Schoenfeld # 6978. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A and the Building Inspector’s February 2, 2016 amended April 18, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to relocate and make additions and alterations to an existing cottage at 1) existing cottage to be relocated less than the code required setback of 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 4760 Blue Horizon Bluffs (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Peconic. Is someone here to represent the application? Good morning please state and spell your name for the record. DAVE KAPELL : Ms. Chairperson members of the Board my name is Dave Kapell 400 Front St. in Greenport and I’m here as agent for Rivka Schoenfeld who’s out of the country and unable to attend in person. She asked me to appear on her behalf. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. So the applicant is proposing a 40 foot setback from the top of the bluff where the code requires 100 feet. Fundamentally stating that to do a greater setback will impact her views. DAVE KAPELL : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so is there anything else that you would like to tell us before we address the LWRP and the Soil and Water letter. DAVE KAPELL : No only to restate what was in the application which is that the proposed setback is consistent with the adjacent the setbacks of adjacent properties in the vicinity. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we all visited the property of course and have seen the cottage up on cribbing and all that and there are a couple of dwellings that are being built now or have recently been built DAVE KAPELL : There’s one yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they have conforming setbacks. DAVE KAPELL : Yes I am aware of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One hundred foot setbacks from the top of the bluff or greater. The large house that’s relatively new to the other side in the other direction also has a far greater conforming setback. The only one that doesn’t is the existing little cottage that’s right near on the other side of Ms. Schoenfeld. ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting DAVE KAPELL : On both sides actually. There are cottages on the east side that are also within the 100 foot setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea well this proposal is for a very, very large house or large house. DAVE KAPELL : No it’s not it’s a couple of thousand square feet it’s not that big actually. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think a couple of thousand square you’re in real estate to me a couple of thousand square feet of new construction is substantial. I think our main concern is number one the actual structural condition of the cottage is such that it looks as though this is going to end up in a demolition but even if it didn’t the application is got part of a deck that’s fifteen feet within the coastal erosion hazard area. The bluff is actively eroding. It needs revegetation and the soil that’s on the bluff face is very sandy and loose and that’s very similar according to the experts the soil that construction would be taking place on which is extremely unstable and it’s actually in my opinion and I’m only speaking for myself something that I personally would not want to invest a great deal of money in putting a very large new dwelling at such high risk of damage from future loss of property because of this very, very unstable bluff it’s a real blowout a bluff blowout there. Soil and Water recommends that it be moved back farther because of those conditions and it seems to me that other new dwellings in the area are recognizing the loss of property that can likely result from not being conforming to the code so if there’s something you’d like to tell us from your point of view that differs with that opinion please do so now. DAVE KAPELL : No I wouldn’t argue with that. We are willing to eliminate the portion of the deck that extends seaward of the north face the house. I noticed that the coastal erosion excuse me the coastal consistency review form also made reference to a vegetated a non- disturbance area between the coastal erosion line and the top of bluff we’d also be agreeable to that. Elimination of the deck would effectively increase the setback to 50 feet. MEMBER DANTES : My question is then the other neighbors who are doing new construction seem to have a conforming setback from the bluff and this is effectively new construction so why I mean what’s the hardship of having the conforming setbacks? DAVE KAPELL : Well I’m not familiar with the topo graphics of the site where the new house went in to the west but I know on our site if you look at the grading on the survey you’ll see that it slopes significantly away from the bluff and the further you go back and what the effect would be if we would build a house further back it would be it would lose the view of the water. That’s really the issue for Ms. Schoenfeld. MEMBER DANTES : Well would she be able to design a house that has a view of the water? ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting DAVE KAPELL : I suppose she could bring you know substantial amounts of fill in that may be what the neighbor did on the westerly side to raise the grade effectively raise the grade of the construction site. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That whole area is going to have to be clear cut anyway you know it’s very heavily wooded. I mean it’s practically sitting in the woods up on cribbing. They probably would of moved it back farther if it weren’t for the fact that there are so many trees in that area so the substantial amount of excavation and loss of trees would be required no matter where you put it. DAVE KAPELL : Going to happen no matter what. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s going to happen anyway. The thing that I think we should explain a little bit is that when we get a letter from LWRP that says it’s inconsistent with the policies in the LWRP local waterfront revitalization program the Board cannot grant relief for anything that we cannot find a way to mitigate to create consistency. So if anything were to be granted by this Board we would have to explain why given certain conditions or changes in the application the concerns of the coordinator are being mitigated okay if we can’t find it consistent we can’t approve it. DAVE KAPELL : Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I just want you to be aware of that. Let’s see if there are questions from the Board Eric do you have questions? MEMBER DANTES : No that was my only one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I think it’s just a very difficult site and I don’t know what to suggest I mean certainly I don’t know what an engineer would say regarding this site and what to do regarding the setback and the consistency of the mitigation of the bluff. I will tell you this however that the gentleman who owns the cottage to the west spent a lot of money redoing that bluff. He never really told me how much. He is a personal friend of mine but I know it was a phenomenal amount a lot of money and that’s one of the issues you basically start out with is a relatively stable bluff and then you worry about the rest of it as it you know goes down the line to improve the property on the top of the bluff and but they re-nurtured that entire bluff and then bulk headed the bottom of it which is really the only answer to saving the bluff. ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING : I was wondering what the purpose of keeping that existing dilapidated seemingly dilapidated structure what is the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George can you pull your mic a little bit closer we’re not getting a good reading on you. MEMBER HORNING : What’s the purpose of retaining the existing structure? DAVE KAPELL : Well you know unfortunately the applicant is not here to speak for herself so you know I’m a stand in forgive me for that but she has an attachment to that structure. It’s a personal interest in that particular building it gives rise to the proposal to reconstruct it and add on to it. MEMBER HORNING : Where was it moved from? DAVE KAPELL : It was I should of brought a picture of it. It was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hanging over. DAVE KAPELL : Literally six feet hanging over the face of the bluff as a result of the erosion that the slip that occurred in hurricane Sandy. I can’t argue with anything that you are saying. What I might ask you for if you’re willing would be to leave the hearing open to give the applicant a chance to come and respond to you at your next availability. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think the only thing she put in her application was the preservation of her views and the fact that the topography slopes DAVE KAPELL : Right that’s the primary that’s her primary issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : toward the (inaudible) and I think that that’s really obviously clear in what she’s her concerns are. I think the Board also is aware the fact that with clear cutting and with perhaps a different kind of grading and construction I mean you can’t put equipment DAVE KAPELL : That close to the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : to build that close to the bluff. It’s just simply going to create more sloughing of the face of the bluff. DAVE KAPELL : Well they had you know the house the building was temporarily moved back to where you saw it and that was done with the assistance of heavy equipment. ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea well there was no choice it was you’re going to lose the whole thing or that was it. That was done in January of this year with a Trustees emergency permit and a building permit for temporary DAVE KAPELL : Relocation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it was put up on cribbing it looks as though there a few new floor joists under it probably necessary when they picked it up so that the whole thing didn’t fall apart. I can probably be fairly confident that when construction were to proceed with this structure as it is now it would be virtually a demolition or it would be very difficult because it would require sistering up of old non-conforming studs sizes that may be rotted you know it’s a waterfront property it isn’t even clear whether or not it could be salvaged. MEMBER DANTES : Are there construction drawings done for this? DAVE KAPELL : No at this point it was conceptual. There was no point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a footprint. That’s all we have and that was the other thing you know we often usually in fact have full construction drawings but in this instance I do understand why you don’t because it’s quite costly and this is a very substantial variance that’s being requested forty feet instead of a hundred. So I can understand why you didn’t want to invest the money in you know in that sort of thing that’s reasonable anything else from anybody, anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6979 – ANTHONY and SARAH NAPPA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Anthony and Sarah Nappa # 6979. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(14). The applicant is the owner requesting authorization to establish an Accessory Bed and Breakfast accessory and incidental to the residential occupancy in this single family dwelling with five (5) bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to the B&B casual transient roomers located at 425 Jacobs Land in Southold. Would one of you like to come to the podium or both just state your name for the record please. SARAH NAPPA : Sarah Nappa ANTHONY NAPPA : Anthony Nappa. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning. Okay, well we visited as you know and you certainly meet the residential qualifications. You submitted documentation that you’re full this is correct you’re full time residents. SARAH NAPPA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have I think a water bill and a driver’s license something like that. We see you have adequate parking for a five bedroom B&B but what we have on your plan is let’s see four bedrooms upstairs correct? Two with bathrooms and then the other two ANTHONY NAPPA : There’s five bedrooms upstairs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Five bedrooms upstairs. ANTHONY NAPPA : Three with bathrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh right, right I’m sorry yea absolutely let me get the plans out. Five bedrooms upstairs yep two with en suite bathrooms and the three sharing a bathroom and then you’re proposing a bedroom which was and is currently being used as a small office or den something like that with a half bath adjacent to it SARA NAPPA : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : for your occupancy. As I mentioned to you the previously when our Board has granted bed and breakfasts we’ve made certain that the applicant had a bedroom with their own private full bathroom available to them and then whatever else was available was fine for the public’s use and I would maintain that until such time as you create a full ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting bathroom downstairs and or expand the size of the little den to a larger size that you would certainly be eligible for a four bedroom bed and breakfast which in no way precludes you coming back in future for an additional bedroom should you decide it’s going well and you want to. Does that make sense to you? ANTHONY NAPPA : Yes. SARA NAPPA : Yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay having said that what’s left, anything Ken from you? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No I agree with what you said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I don’t have questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are we in agreement on this? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea the point in question though and we did the inspection they don’t necessarily need the rear entrance as we had seen adjacent to that office area and even more importantly really what they only have to do is put a shower in that one particular area where the washer dryer was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea it’s adaptable but it isn’t there now so MEMBER GOEHRINGER : They can put a shower in there and still put a washer dryer stack them in the same location and just put a door on it. I mean you can even leave the rear door there and just put you know a curtain over I mean to be honest with you we’re trying CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m not going to design it for them nor should you the bottom line is it’s clearly adaptable but it isn’t there now and let them go ahead and with blessings to enjoy running a B&B and should you find you’re so successful that you have to have a fifth bedroom they can do that they absolutely can and it wouldn’t be nearly as big a rigmarole as it might be in some other houses. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So in effect what you’re saying is we’re just granting four bedrooms at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Four bedrooms yea. George questions, comments? MEMBER HORNING : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you’re okay with it right? ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting SARA NAPPA : Yea that’s fine. 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. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6981 – TODD and MARY HAMILTON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Todd and Mary Hamilton # 6981. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s March 20, 2016 amended July 8, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions to an existing single family dwelling at 1) proposed front covered entry porch addition is less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet located at 190 Great Pond Way in Southold. Just state your name for the record please. EILEEN SANTORA : My name is Eileen Santora. I represent Mary and Todd Hamilton. As you can see in the application they’ve owned this house for a couple of years. They plan now to make this their permanent residence and originally this house was designed as affordable housing so it’s very tight very small kitchen, had no window, the front entry you walked in and you had less than three feet to the stairwell that went upstairs smack right into it. So, we proposed as you can see to rearrange the whole house and to make it a much more substantial better looking ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting house which fits more into the community of that area and all we’re asking for is to put a little front covered porch. We’re not really making it very large. I would like to make it come out five feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it looks like the proposed size is 8 feet 6 inches by 5 feet. EILEEN SANTORA : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s to be opened roofed but open. EILEEN SANTORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And 16 inches off grade. Front yard setback is proposed at 35 feet the code requires 40. The house is already at 40 feet correct? EILEEN SANTORA : Right. Well yes the house CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Without the landing. EILEEN SANTORA : Well the house is further the house is not 40 there’s an addition that’s a little shed CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bump out thing. EILEEN SANTORA : The shed that we’re taking off but we’re moving that I’m moving that over to make to today’s building code says you have more room in front of the steps to go up the stairs and an entrance way and so it’s less the code says 40 feet and with this five feet it’s like 35 plus a few inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thirty five foot one inch it looks like. We’ll call it 35 that’s fine. Okay you’re adding a second story and garage additions. EILEEN SANTORA : We’re adding a living room addition, screened in porch and a two car garage with storage above. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But those all have conforming front yard setbacks it’s just the little porch we’re talking about. EILEEN SANTORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it only runs for 8 ½ feet along the front of the otherwise conforming setback. ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting EILEEN SANTORA : Right and the house now has a front little entry that protrudes further than what we’re asking for. It’s like a little wooden deck there’s flowers all around but the new one will be covered. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just making some notes. Okay anybody Ken any questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yep you got a shed in the front yard there EILEEN SANTORA : That’s being removed. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And you’re going to move it where? EILEEN SANTORA : It’s just being removed. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh removed. EILEEN SANTORA : Yea. We won’t need it now. Now we’ll have a two car garage. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh okay and we can make the permit contingent on that removal? EILEEN SANTORA : Yes it’s on the survey it is marked as to be removed. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea it doesn’t say when though. EILEEN SANTORA : Oh okay. Well we are going we’re going to remove when we go with the excavation you know with the vehicle the machinery to start the addition we’ll pick it up and we’ll move it we’re gonna just take it away. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay. Do we want to do that or have it to be removed before they get a permit? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t care as long as they remove it you know put it down as (inaudible) a time frame on it. EILEEN SANTORA : For the building inspection it will be removed. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea we’ll put it yea we’ll put a time frame. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just simply say prior to the issuance of the C.O. on MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay. EILEEN SANTORA : No prior to the C.O. that’ll be fine. ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can figure that out. If you want to put it down in some other wording MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We’ll put something down you know how that goes sometimes to be removed or to be relocated and it never happens. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You could put it down within a year of the day of this decision or within six months of the date of this decision. It depends on how long it takes the Building Department to move forward eight months whatever you think is a reasonable time frame. We’re trying to be more specific. When people say removal sometimes the removal is not done four years later. EILEEN SANTORA : I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it just makes it clearer and cleaner that there’s some time frame. EILEEN SANTORA : When I first met the clients which is almost a year ago we started his project I drove up and I saw it there and I said this is not legal you know and they said okay we’ll remove it. So they’re very aware of it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We’ll put probably something like within a year or something like that of the decision. EILEEN SANTORA : Sure no problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else in the audience I guess not you’re the next one. We’re going to have to just keep on doing this this is fun. We’re so early it’s kind of scary. Alright okay well hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 6982 – VIRGINIA and MICHAEL BONTJE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Virginia and Michael Bontje # 6982. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s April 22, 2016 amended and renewed June 30, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to demolish and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) proposed single family dwelling is less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) proposed single family dwelling is less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 805 Island View Drive in Greenport. Good morning would you just please state and spell your name for the record please. MICHALE BONTJE : Sure I’m Michael Bontje. I am one of the owners of the property and I am also President of B. Laing Associates which is an environmental consulting firm. Just to fully disclose so we’ve testified before Town Boards many times before particularly in environmental matters. I just wanted to say a few things. We’ve owned the house for actually cottage for about twenty eight years. It’s two bedrooms and a loft, very small kitchen, very small bathroom, outdoor shower. We basically wish to demolish it and replace it and basically come out here to retire. This would be our permanent residence and so what we want to do is enlarge it and modernize it frankly too. Right now we’re before you folks because we need a variance for a front yard setback to 31 feet from 35 and the rear yard setback to 25 feet from 35 in this zone. Starting with the rear yard which is toward the water the house by you’re the way you guys set up wetlands or the Trustees does we’re about 10 feet from the wetlands. For D.E.C. we’re about 12 feet from the wetlands and we’re about 12 feet from the property line. So it basically doubling the distance back from the property line and as (inaudible) it’s the best room in the house so we’re kind of sad about losing that but the in the front yard what we’re doing is going to 31 feet that’s largely driven there’s a little bit of a dent. We’re moving the sanitary system it’s about 36 feet from the wetlands right now, we’re moving it as far away as we can which is 81 feet. The Trustees have already requested that we go to 2 foot deep pools rather than 4 foot deep pools for the sanitary which doubles the number. So what I kind of did ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting was put a dent in the front of the house. You’ll see that the front of the house towards the street kind of goes over and back a little to the south and then comes off to the northwest and to square out that corner and to get the square footage that we wanted we had that extra four feet coming into the front yard. Again part of our needs too is we have to have a bedroom on the first floor so we have to have living space you know approaching sixty now I know I look terribly younger but I am approaching sixty as is my wife that’s not going on the record by the way or I’ll get in trouble. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Too late it’s recorded. MICHAEL BONTJE : Now I’m really in trouble forget dealing with you guys now I have to deal with my wife but anyway you know we’re going to need a bedroom on the first floor cause we’re thinking okay you know we’re good now but we (inaudible) our parents and other people you know you have to have everything on the first floor so we do need a bedroom on the first floor as well as a bathroom, a guest bathroom and then a kitchen and utility area. That’s kind of where we’re going for that square footage. Also in the front yard setback getting back to that there is an odd ball lot there’s two of them actually that occur in this stretch of lots that were access to the old farm field before the (inaudible) and they’re unattributed lots they’re not shown on any maps here but they literally have nobody they don’t pay taxes and they show no ownership. That’s about sixteen feet deep in front of my house so actually the house rather than being 31 feet from the road will actually be about 45 to 47 feet from the road cause that lot is you know uncleared we haven’t counted on it. We’re showing you our property so in reality it will actually be a little further back visually it will be a little further back than that. A couple of things you got a letter or the town got a letter I guess then forwarded it to me from the Town’s Planning people and it said that we were inconsistent with policy 4.1 of the LWRP the coastal review. That was based on storm water so what we did was we had already planned and you’ll see on your plans there’s three dry wells for the storm water runoff to go down you know from the roof into those dry wells. Again entirely separate from the sanitary system and what I did was I modeled those and demonstrated that they’ll take at least a five year rainfall which is about four and a half inches to and then dissipate that the ground water so you do have an increase in storm water runoff because from the larger impervious surfaces but that’ll be handled now by dry wells. Right now it all goes off onto the surface. Again these are more environmental issues but it was brought up in the context of my file here so MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) August 22, 2016 that you’re referring to? MICHAEL BONTJE : Yes. So anyway I think I believe we cured that and that would make us consistent with the LWRP. As far as zoning goes this would definitely be in character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is largely a series of cottages that were built in the late ‘40”s ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting and early ‘50”s. Part of them like mine are beginning to experience structural issues and different issues of different sorts and part of the reason we’re doing this now is not only do we want to retire out here in a couple of years but you know I don’t want to be eighty years old dealing with these issues and a house or a cottage that’s now twenty years older than doing it now. It makes much more sense for us to do it now. The one of the examples I point out I kind of briefly hear this in the pre meeting discussion was the Malazzo’s are three houses down from this. They requested a similar variance to their rear yard. I can’t testify that it’s exact maybe twelve feet or maybe you know fifteen feet I don’t know but thirteen feet further back they cut their cottage back that much and it also required a side yard variance I don’t know if they needed a front yard variance and were granted those and basically we’re following in that sort of mold is to come back from the wetlands. Again we’re almost doubling our distance and basically that was the end of my presentation so you have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let’s see what the Board has to say. We don’t have any architectural plans in our file. MICHAEL BONTJE : You received from Mark Schwartz several elevations. They should be 11 by 17’s or 8 by 11’s and a minor like an interior draft floor plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m looking. MICHAEL BONTJE : So the elevations show that we you know we’ll be in compliance with the I think it’s 35 feet for the height we’ll be in compliance for that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a quick question? What was the nature of this flooding during storm Sandy toward your cottage? MICHALE BONTJE : It came into the property and it just missed the floor boards by the existing floor boards by about three inches or so and we had a lot of I keep telling people we didn’t have a disaster but we had a heck of a mess (inaudible) front yard. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I want you to know sir I’ve been on this Board for a long time. I have to ask this question. We have done a lot of renovations on Island View Lane a long time some of it a long time ago. I stand by your dock and I look at all the houses across from where you are and I noticed they’re all bulk headed. How come you have not entertained the idea of bulk heading anything in front of your house? MICHAEL BONTJE : Well you know our first of all we had a fair number of rocks that have always been on the shoreline and pretty substantial rocks. Secondly we’re kind of behind a barrier of beach there’s that barrier beach that kind of goes out Conklin Point and you have that march ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting area and so far I’ve seen it in three different what I would call flooding events of the Halloween storms of ’92 and ’93 I don’t know if you remember them MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I do. MICHAEL BONTJE : and then Sandy and what happens is I think that beach goes underwater and breaks the wave action. We don’t have much of a (inaudible) it’s actually one of things that attracted me to that parcel was you don’t get very much wave action ever you know you get a little ripple an inch or two on the shore line and we’ve always managed we’ve always you know managed to keep it vegetated. I’ve never wanted to bring the lawn down to there even though we left the bushes in there and trying to encourage that growth. I’ve done several plantings just to make sure to maintain that growth over the years, salt bushes and things like that but we’ve lost in twenty eight years I would say we’ve lost less than six inches of shore line there. So that’s really why I would never entertain plus the house is going back another thirteen feet you know and that’s part of the reason it’s flipped the way it is because if we flipped it the other way we’ve considered flipping it the other way so the deck would be on the other side of the property and the driveway would be on the other side of the property but that pushes the sanitaries closer to the wetland but it also pushes the foundation a little back a little closer to the wetland too. I thought you know further back is better so that’s why we never entertained a bulkhead. I’d like to leave natural and so far it has behaved very well you know in terms of erosion and shoreline condition so. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : During storm Sandy it breached the bulk heads across from you? MICHAEL BONTJE : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It did? MICHAEL BONTJE : Oh yea it went up and over Mike Carlucci’s bulk head, it went over yea it went over all the bulk heads to my west and south cause that’s where the bulk heads are they kind of go to the west and south. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I know you’re a little higher than there. MICHAEL BONTJE : Yea and yea they breached all the bulk heads went up into the yards. Bulk heads are generally fine. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Are you driving pilings on this new project? MICHAEL BONTJE : No we’re not. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank you. ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The LWRP indicates that you’re going to have to add what is this 4.3 feet of fill over the existing grade for the new sanitary system in the front yard? MICHAEL BONTJE : Yes and what we did is we’ve actually already talked to the Trustees about this and we sort of mimicked there’s a house down on the corner of Bayshore and Island View Lane CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know it. MICHAEL BONTJE : that was recently redone. Yea I know there were issues with that one too so I’m trying to do it right but that has a knee wall and we’ll have a similar condition to that where there’s like a two foot knee wall that comes up and then the grade will come up from there and again they we actually proposed initially with the Trustees to have about a four foot knee wall or a four foot wall and then they came back and said well you’re going to have these two foot rings two foot deep rings that are four foot deep rings again which pushed the house back but it reduced the height of the wall by two feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and this is a demolition you’re site plan you know with all the colored lines and so on says proposed two story addition but that means you just making it a two story dwelling. MICHAEL BONTJE : Two story house we made it clear in CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to clarify cause it calls it a demo (inaudible) MICHAEL BONTJE : I believe in the notes and in the Building Department’s denial both of those things are made clear yea we’re doing a demolition. This foundation will be inadequate you know when we open it up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course you will need Trustees approval for this. MICHAEL BONTJE : Yes we know that and like I said we actually started with them in January and then they and we went actually through one round sort of informally with them you know without a hearing and made some several changes and then we came back we went to the Building Department that’s when they said okay you need the variances and that’s how we came to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if we ask for comments from the Trustees I mean we usually go first on variances and then subject to Trustee approval. Sometimes it’s more sensible for the applicant to actually to have the Trustees make comments upfront what we don’t want for us to make a decision then to make a different decision you’d have to come back to amend your application here because they require some buffer that was their jurisdiction that we didn’t ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting have in our determination. So if you’ve already had a pre submission conference and made some changes based on their suggestions perhaps what we should do is try and get some comments from them cause they’ll be familiar with it. MICHAEL BONTJE : Yea I would say number one they are familiar with it already. I believe the Board Chairman that we met with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jay Bredemeyer. MICHALE BONTJE : Yea and he was rather particular about a number of things which we changed to match so I assume we have probably the bulk of their comments already built in to this application. Secondly it’s a process thing you know what I mean cause every time I do this I have to redo the whole application and you know it’s ten drawings at twenty bucks a piece, nineteen dollars apiece you know it has a habit of multiplying. Third is (inaudible) followed this procedure before and it’s worked rather well and again I’ve testified before the Trustees many times so I have a ten foot non-fertilization buffer for that I put in specifically put in the storm water controls cause I knew that would be a requirement to I specifically went to them first you know knowing that I would probably wind up here just cause that’s kind of your procedure and I knew I would need variances so I would urge you not to because I think it would add process to me in the end and I think we you know and again it meets Malazzo’s what the Malazzo’s did too so there’s no so we’re not setting a precedent here either in terms of what we’re doing both for them and for the Trustees. So I rather not but again you know I’m not the Board so that’s your determination. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well no I just want discuss with transparently with you know complimentary thinking here when we do this it’s primarily because it’s less costly for the applicant you know to go back and forth we would simply adjourn without a date or adjourn till November or something to give you a chance to go to the Trustees but you’ve already applied is that correct? MICHAEL BONTJE : Yea we already applied and we didn’t formerly get rejected we just got referred out to the Building Department and made the changes, came back and they said okay no we’re going to refer you to Building Department and then wound up here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay see you have an open application with the Trustees is that correct or no? MICHAEL BONTJE : We have an application before them. We actually noticed the hearing. We actually public noticed the hearing in March so I would say yes. Has anybody told me yea you have an open application no but again I actually noticed the public hearing for the Trustees back in March. ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Last year this year? MICHAEL BONTJE : This year oh yea this year 2016. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And there was no hearing? MICHAEL BONTJE : Yea because they said oh gee the Building Department just came back and said you need variances. You got to go to the Trustees first. T.A. DUFFY : ZBA first. MICHAEL BONTJE : Oh yea ZBA first thank you. So I just don’t want to get stuck in this you know tennis ball thing and again having one conference with them already I really think I’ve substantially dealt with their comments. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We don’t know what their comments are. MEMBER DANTES : Were they written comments or oral? MICHAEL BONTJE : No it was verbal. We sat down we sat at the Trustees office and pulled out a map and we went through it with the Chairman you know and he looked at the sanitary pools and he said we don’t want a four foot wall do two footers. What are you doing for storm water so I pointed that out you know that sort of thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea no I was I think what we probably will be useful to us so we don’t have to send you back to the Trustees until we finish our determination is to simply ask the Trustees to summarize you know take a look at your current plans that we have and let them summarize the fact that they reflect changes that you discussed with them and that they’re that they would recommend we go ahead and make our determination. MICHAEL BONTJE : Now this is this would be an internal process of yours so I would not be involved it (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, yea, yea no we’ll ask them we’ll I think we can ask them to do that. MICHAEL BONTJE : Obviously I would like to get carbon copied on it so I can keep in my file and keep track. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly. MICHAEL BONTJE : And if there are any questions then I can ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I’ll just send memo over and ask them based upon their pre- submission and the current plans before us which reflect a proposed changes that was discussed with the Trustees we’re prepared to make our determination unless there is something that you know the Trustees require or suggest we’d like to just get comments. MICHAEL BONTJE : Yea I like the form of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea in a previous one we just asked the Trustees to go first cause it was a buffer that was a prior permit from several years back wetlands encroached and it looks as though what’s being proposed before us is in the buffer because the buffer’s changed so we need to sort that out that’s really their jurisdiction it’s a lot coverage for us so we told them to go first but in this case you clearly have a lot of environmental expertise and you’ve already worked with the Trustees so that’s a little different. MICHAEL BONTJE : But I do prefer the wording of saying unless you have any comments cause that way you guys maintain your independence and they’re obviously not gonna they might hesitate what I’m afraid of is they might hesitate too and may say well (inaudible) bind us you know what I mean? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no we’ll have to figure out a way to simply say look we’d like to we have LWRP, we have your testimony and documents saying that you believe you’ve mitigated the concern and we can always condition based on compliance with chapter 236’s storm water management which we generally do anyway and you don’t usually submit a (inaudible) until after you go to the Building Department anyway. MICHAEL BONTJE : Yea that’ll go with building plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that’s not a problem but it would be useful to have just procedurally some comments from Trustees since you’ve already gone to them and we can just have them submit them to us and we’ll hold it open till we get it and we’ll just keep their feet to the fire and try and get it within the next week or so. MICHAEL BONTJE : Two procedural questions, would there be any need to re-notify the next hearing say it’s November? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no. MICHAEL BONTJE : Okay very good and then the second question is kind of mutually accepting the fact that I might get an approval if I did get an approval how long would that last? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here’s what happens ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MICHAEL BONTJE : From the ZBA cause I’m just not that familiar with CHAIRPEROSN WEISMAN : If we close the hearing of course we have 62 days in which time to render a decision but generally what we do is we try to have a deliberation on a draft determination two weeks from the day it’s our next meeting so if we closed it today we would be deliberating probably two weeks from today. What we will do in this instance is adjourn it to that date so we will hopefully get comments from the Trustees and we can close it. I don’t know if we would have additional comments or questions. If there were other questions that we might have we would then have you come back to address them or ask you to address them in writing you know prior to closing and deliberating. So we move pretty quickly it’s not like the Planning Board. We really have a much shorter turnaround time and we have no investment in holding applicants up. We move as quickly as we can. So I think the best thing to do is for us to adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks and I will either I or Kim will ask Trustees to give us some written comments on this application and the assumption will be we won’t have questions about we will close this and then we’ll deliberate just about a month from today next meeting. We meet every two weeks. MICHAEL BONTJE : Very good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Does that make sense to everybody? T.A. DUFFY : You also asked how good the approval’s for? MICHAEL BONTJE : Yes. if I do receive an approval how long? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh how long, three years. MICHAEL BONTJE : Oh okay great. MEMBER DANTES : Plus you can apply for extensions after that. MICHAEL BONTJE : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our variances no longer runs with the land but they are good for three years from the day of the decision and if there’s any reason why you somehow couldn’t start construction by then you know cause the variance is codified once construction in place. You can apply to us for a one year extension up to three times. So that thing can be as much as six years. MICHAEL BONTJE : Thank you very much it’s just hard to keep them all in order like I have D.E.C. now I got to get the Trustees and you guys before D.E.C. runs out CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You picked a real easy piece of property didn’t you? ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MICHAEL BONTJE : Well I guess it’s self-inflicted I’ve been doing this since 1980 so maybe I should of known better in 1988 so great thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re very welcome. MICHAEL BONTJE : Oh I’m sorry any other questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board at this point? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea just when does the D.E.C. permit run out? MICHAEL BONTJE : I believe it runs out either 2017 or 2018 but they’re a five year (inaudible) and they generally consider the permits your first (inaudible) is kind of a (inaudible) with the D.E.C. so that should have another seven years or so. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So you’re safe. MICHAEL BONTJE : Yea I believe so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else from anybody? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close to adjourn the hearing to the Special Meeting on September 15 th subject to request from Trustees for comments. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Gerry all in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING # 6983 – RAFAEL and FRANCOISE CRANDALL FERRER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Rafael and Francoise Crandall Ferrer # 6983. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s May 17, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions to a single family dwelling at 1) proposed addition is less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) proposed addition is less than the code required single side yard setback of 10 feet located at 230 Oyster Ponds Lane in Orient. Would you like to take the podium and state your name and spell it for the record please. FRANCOISE CRANDALL FERRER : My name is Francoise Crandall Ferrer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so this looks like additions and alterations to an existing dwelling well we’ve done a site inspection so we’re familiar with the street and with your dwelling. This is a front yard setback at proposed at 23.5 feet where the code requires 35 feet and a side yard setback of 4.9 feet where the code requires 10 feet. Now I want to ask start with a question on June 19, 2014 in ZBA decision # 6756 we granted a front yard and side yard setback variance 27 feet for the front yard and 4.3 for the side yard. What happened there why is this variance MS. FERRER : This property was purchased by my present neighbor Peter Triber and his wife who live I don’t know the exact address on Oyster Pond but it’s the house further to the southwest and Peter had purchased it because he wanted to build a guest house and a swimming pool designed by the same architect that did his house which is I believe he built it in 2010 around there 2009. He went through part process with you he went for a variance and he also started the Health Department permits for septic and well that were not could not be to code because the lots are too small for the distances. Subsequent to that the neighbor behind him died and that property has a much nicer view and so on and so they decided to purchase that and then sell 230 Oyster Pond Lane so Peter was halfway through the process. I purchased the property and the attorneys did make documentation that past the permitting of the Health Department which is very difficult to get time consuming and also a lot of fees and issues of getting water tests and all that so I purchased the property with those two things in place. What I want to do Peter wanted to make this grand guest house, a swimming pool this huge porch so on and so forth and kind of not legally join the properties but you know for them to make a larger property. What I want to do is make a single family home. My husband is older than I am he’s an artist and I presently live in Greenport and we have had issues that we need to deal with mostly the stairwell and I’m putting an elevator in because my husband is 83, he’s in very good shape but life happens. So, I went through a process with the architect ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting recommended by the contractor I’ve used in the past Joel Daly and at first I made a much bigger it was 45 feet it was a little bit too grandiose I think studio on the first floor and so on and when the reality of the cost of everything came to me because in Greenport I did a major addition in 2006 and building costs have more than doubled. I completely reassessed what I’m going to do and I said no lets you know incorporate this and make it more modest and so it’s much more modest than what Peter Triber was going to do but I think Peter was also going to incorporate the building that exists so that it does have in common but I’m not making footprint wise he was kind of going to the max because the swimming pool had to be included in it and I am not and I really want to keep the back yard as much as I can you know and I think that you know the options for making the second floor setback it’s a lot of little roofs and I’d have you know it would really make me make a bigger structure in the back to code setbacks so I’m asking for this variance for that reason. The variance for the entry way the first floor is these buildings were built in the fifties and sixties and they look like development track houses and you know they don’t have any personality whatsoever and I really felt that this was a way that I could give some more street appeal to the structure and I hope that you agree to me. I know that looking at code I could just do the cover over the entry way and that would be fine but I think that if I incorporate the garage it also helps me solve a problem of the space in the garage for entry from the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are do you know of any other non-conforming front yard setbacks along that street? MS. FERRER : You know I did not do that research. I know that on the other side of Triber’s house there is a house right now being constructed and its very, very large and I don’t know if she had to get variances because if she did I think it would have been side yard setbacks cause it looks very wide at that property I don’t know when you went to see mine you did see what was going on there but you know I do live in Greenport village now and I do like being in a village I didn’t want to be out in the middle of nowhere but there is beginning more and more on that street to have that feeling of being part of the village and for that reason I don’t think it’s you know too narrow once it’s landscaped once I hide that telephone pole that’s in the front that’s so ugly but unfortunately I didn’t think to do that. I don’t know when you drove on that street if you had any impressions of other little houses. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well yea but often the Board will ask in order to evaluate the character of the neighborhood whether or not there are prior variances granted with similar front yard setbacks. MS. FERRER : I did go to each neighbor that was affected and speak to them and show them the either they asked me to just tell them or I said if you want to see the plan I can show it to you ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting and so on. Everybody has been really very sweet and in fact Mr. Lars the most affected he is to the north let’s see northeast of me came to the house we met at the house and talked and he asked me some questions and so on and he said he was going to come he said we talked on the phone after that and cause I sent him some things through email and he said I’m not going to object to what you’re doing but I feel like going but obviously he didn’t feel like going enough he’s not here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it looks like the house is currently set at 28 feet? MS. FERRER : Yes there is a stoop there now that is sticking out a little further than what I want to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And this proposed entry is going to be running approximately half of the elevation of the front the length? MS. FERRER : The part that will have a little roof over it with a covered entry for the door and the garage I know the garage is eleven feet wide and that entry area maybe is about I’m thinking eight feet something like that seven to eight feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m just looking at Frank’s elevation and seeing that cause it does (inaudible) MS. FERRER : And the whole façade is 39 feet so MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Half of that. MS. FERRER : It’s approximately half yea. The architect suggested well why don’t you run a porch the whole front and I said no that’s not necessary I mean the back yard is too lovely that’s where I’m going to sit I’m not gonna can’t envision sitting on a front porch so why make it you know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The second story has a conforming side yard it looks like ten feet the proposed second story. MS. FERRER : The new addition it does not sit upon the existing structure is all to code yes. It’s much less than the footprint allows. It’s going to be ten feet setback and you know and the height requirement is going to be lower than height requirements. MEMBER DANTES : Leslie I think the second story is in the ten foot setback it’s just that they shaded it differently for the conforming versus the non-conforming. MS. FERRER : There’s about 5 to 6 feet on the east side and the same I think 6 feet on the street side which is the I’m thinking southwest side southeast side rather. ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The way it was drawn it looked to me like this portion was the second story addition. You’re saying that’s also part of the second story? So a portion of it is conforming and then another part bumps out. The Notice of Disapproval refers to a 4.9 foot side yard setback but this drawing also shows a 4.4 foot side yard. MS. FERRER : Well the property is not square. So in the front yard CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a 4 foot 9 and a 4 foot 4 side yard setback and the Notice refers to 4.9 but not 4.4 which is the lesser setback it should of. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It should be 4.4 MS. FERRER : 4.4 it should be but that was written by the Building Department was it not? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep Damon Rallis. MS. FERRER : The property line isn’t square to the house so it goes it recedes at an angle so the structure that we’re going to build the surveyor has to you know verify that it’s ten feet at the furthest the most western point northwestern point because it does lean in so I mean the architect designed it for six feet one inch that we have to pull it in further but I think we have to do six foot three but that’s going to be determined by the surveyor cause I’m just going to tell him you have to put it at the ten foot setback. MEMBER DANTES : The plans that we approve the variance for was 2014? MS. FERRER : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : Was there a second floor addition on the? MS. FERRER : Yes and there were three bedrooms let me recall I saw one copy of it pardon? MEMBER DANTES : Was the second floor addition in the side yard setback? MS. FERRER : I don’t think it was. I think that they did I’m not exactly sure why they asked for a variance cause I did not you know get the plans I wasn’t going to build that structure. I don’t know why they did have to ask for a variance though so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the setback that was granted was for 4.3 feet. MEMBER DANTES : But I don’t remember if the plans had a second story addition in the 4.3. feet or whether we did the second story (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think we might have the decision in here. ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : We do but it doesn’t say if there was a second story or not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn’t say that? MEMBER DANTES : No that’s what I can’t remember. I was the one that wrote the decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says relief requested let’s see. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a question. MS. FERRER : Yes you can of course. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So do we know what the proposed first floor addition is on the front in reference to length? It’s seven feet eight and a half inches. MS. FERRER : No it’s not you have to incorporate you want to know how wide it is. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We have to incorporate the garage. MS. FERRER : Right it’s 11.5 and plus 7 feet 8 ½ so 19 feet 3 ½ and the full length of the house is 39 feet. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I’m going to ask you a question that I haven’t asked in many years okay and I don’t want you to become offended by it I just want you to listen to me we’ve had some major problems with rooftop observatories rooftop decks okay mainly because they intrude on your neighbors back yard okay now the question I have is have you had a discussion with your neighbor regarding MS. FERRER : The only neighbor that would be affected by that deck which is to code it’s not in the variance situation he has a deck as well because when you’re up higher you see a little water and it’s very pleasant. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Right. MS. FERRER : And Peter is the only one that would not be affected and he’s just said to me when he sees the plans gung go bunny great. So he’s fine with it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So there’s no particular problem that you foresee. What is the purpose of it? Is it something that your husband’s going to MS. FERRER : The purpose of it is that it’s about what is the expression you know enjoyment. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It’s part of the whole Orient view. MS. FERRER : Yes, yes. ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay right good. So you don’t foresee that there’s going to be any communication between you and the neighbor regarding an issue that of intrusion. MS. FERRER : No in fact the most contentious neighbor that everyone told me would be the most contentious neighbor is my neighbor behind me Jill Muer and I am Jill and I, I put a deer fence up because I have little dogs and I had to resolve a fence and she was right there with me. Everybody said she doesn’t want you to touch she was gung ho. We put a gate so that I can go visit her and she can come see me and she was horrified because Peter and his family he has an extended family that visit and they love to party and she said to me wait till you see the parties they have you know and so on so I think she was relieved that the pool house was not going behind her because that would have been a lot of noise that would have been where all the guests were that would have been the party house so on the contrary I think that people are relieved you know because that was what was coming. I mean the neighbor across the street from me said to me are you going to do the same thing? Are you building the same and I told him no, I’m not and then I showed him and he was relieved you know I mean it’s not going to say oh phew but that was what the house was going to be with the previous person that got the variance. It was going to be a party house. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Do you know how that deck is going to be constructed? Is it going to be constructed as a flat deck with a little bit of pitch? MS. FERRER : I think that the reason you know I’ve been really pushing my architect to get things because he is so busy and so he’s I think doing now all the engineering stuff for the final building permit. I want to have a roof you know on there will be a roof absolutely and then a deck and I’m going to do everything I did everything cedar in Greenport you know to the top I’m in the historic district now I really want to do sustainable stuff pardon? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It’s going to have decking on top of the roof? MS. FERRER : Yes it’s going to have decking and I’m going to do the new stuff that they’re making now. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Trex or whatever. MS. FERRER : I mean first of all it’s about the (inaudible) it’s the maintenance you can see within the time I’ve lived in my house since I did the addition how you have to keep replacing trim and so on. I think that the new clapboard looks if you’re painting your house it doesn’t make any difference it looks terrific. After I get the final roof lines I want to investigate solar panels you know I want to have a little bit more of a sustainable structure. ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay I was merely concerned about the roof deck. I have to tell you we’ve taken tremendous testimony in the past regarding these things. MS. FERRER : Oh really? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes particularly people that had children next door okay and it was quite eye opening years ago. MS. FERRER : Really? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea and how people were viewing down at children and so on and so forth really crazy yea so I just had to ask that question. MS. FERRER : And not only that but the side of the house that I’m facing of Peter’s is like the back side you know because the view is to the other side so in his rear yard which is quite small it’s more his house has to be built to the maximum I mean it’s like a town house in the sense that he’s got minimum ten foot side setbacks but I’m on the side where there’s you know the things that hang clothes and things like that so I mean it’s not like the now that they have the pool house behind that’s where all that’s going on but I didn’t see that’s interesting I’ve never. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It’s very interesting I’ll tell ya we took MS. FERRER : Cause I think more and more when there’s some kind of a view it’s nice. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Of course. MS. FERRER : Yea and people even I was thinking of doing an upside down house and Peter’s is an upside down house. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : A lot of people are doing that now. MS. FERRER : Any other questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George any questions? MEMBER HORNING : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No I’m fine I’m good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let me see if there’s anything else here. Well our previous determination indicates that there are a number of non-conforming yards in the area. That certainly wouldn’t of changed let me see if we really need to see any of those prior variances or ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting if it’s sufficient simply reiterate what we wrote in the previous decision. It’s clear at that point that the owner submitted priors indicating that there were variances for non-conformities that could be Pre C.O.’s you’re not in the historic district per say are you? MS. FERRER : No I am not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then landmarks doesn’t have to chime in on this. Alright MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have a question. Looking at this plan here with the color coding looking at your lot and then right up above it it shows existing one story framed house which is the property MS. FERRER : That is what we have now. That’s not the neighbor that’s to show you what exists there now the size of the structure. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay fine. MS. FERRER : Because the house next door is a larger more substantial ranch from the sixties and I would say that would probably be one of the non-conforming in terms of side yards total side yards that’s what I think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not only would the side yard be but the setback is the same as what your existing house is. MS. FERRER : No, no, no that little house is (inaudible) MEMBER SCHNEIDER : She’s saying that’s her house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that’s just what your footprint is okay that’s not clear. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So that’s not the neighbor that’s just (inaudible) existing house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here’s the side yards. Alright the neighbor in that direction has a non-conforming side yard that’s for sure. You have a huge side yard on the other side. MS. FERRER : Exactly yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The house was never sited in the middle of the lot it’s one of those things that happened prior to zoning. People just put things where they put them. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : How do you want to address the 4.4 and the 4.9? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would basically indicate that the notice indicates a 4.9 however at the closest point you know to the property line which does not parallel the side of the house it’s ?? September 1, 2016 Regular Meeting 4.4. Just put it in there and grant the 4.4. Grant the relief at 4.4 because if you do 4.9 it’s going to be confusing. So I think we kind of have to correct the notice and proceed to grant that with cause that is is that the existing 4.4 MS. FERRER : 4.4 is the existing house yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s what I thought okay. So you’re just stepping that second story addition back from that point toward the rear. MS. FERRER : Six feet I think the architect says six feet one inch because we have to incorporate the fact that it will continue to recede and I’ve made an argument to him it’s going to be a little more than that but we’re just resolving it by having if we have to take a few inches off a plan just to get it right with the surveyor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s fine. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But the second story had that side yard location is still at 4.4 not 4.9? MS. FERRER : Yes the addition on top of the existing house yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But the back part is at conforming ten feet? MS. FERRER : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I got it anything else from anybody else? There is no one else in the audience so hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserves decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) ??