Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/03/2016 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 November 3, 2016 9:41 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -Chairperson/Member ERIC DANTES— Member GERARD GOEHRINGER— Member GEORGE HORNING — Member KENNETH SCHNElDER— Mem ber KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Homes Anew 1 Ltd. 3-21 Randi and Fred Silber 22 - 25 Jeroen and Robin Bours 25 - 34 Stephen Albertson 34- 39 Joseph and Linda Sciotto 39 -47 David Hazard 47 - 53 Donna and Joseph Pradas 53 - 56 Thomas Byrne 57 - 59 November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING #6996— HOMES ANEW 1, LTD. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first public hearing before the Board this morning is for Homes Anew 1, Ltd. #6996. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's June 10, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct a handicapped accessory ramp attached to an existing multi-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required front yard minimum setback of 50 feet, located at 9625 Main Bayview Avenue Southold New York. Is there somebody here to represent the application? FRANK RESTITUTO : I'm Frank Restituto the architect for Homes Anew. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Would you raise that mic just a little bit we're recording the proceedings and I want to make sure that we get you. Okay so your application is to construct a handicap ramp addition to a residential structure with a front yard setback of 7 feet where the code requires 50 feet. You were previously granted in ZBA 6853 a front yard setback of 10 feet to reconstruct in place and in kind an existing front porch entrance. At that time it was a five unit apartment building multi family dwelling. The ramp is 15 feet on one side and 7 feet on the other side in terms of its setbacks. Is there anything else you would like us to know? FRANK RESTITUTO : Yes I have a prepared statement that I'd like to read into the record. The matter at hand is the construction of a new wheel chair accessible ramp in the front of the existing structure located on Main Bayview Road. My client is requesting a reduction of the required front yard setback so that the ramp can be constructed. My client family residences and essential enterprises which is operating this structure as Homes Anew is a widely respected not for profit organization providing supporting services in specialty healthcare for individuals with developmental disabilities and traumatic brain injuries. With regard to the construction of the new wheel chair accessible ramp in the front of this structure it will provide critical emergency egress from the first floor level bedroom for an individual with ambulation difficulties in the event of an emergency evacuation from the structure. This request is being made not for aesthetic enhancement of the structure but for a necessary means of safe egress to a front yard sidewalk which leads to a safe open area away from the building. This request is strictly being made on the basis of a serious medical condition and the welfare of the residence. The construction of the ramp will not require any trees to be removed or will it be necessary for any I'm sorry the construction of the ramp will not require any trees to be removed or will it increase any interior living space. The request will not affect any side yard setbacks nor will it adversely affect the overall appearance of the neighboring properties or create any adverse effects on the environment. The Board is requested to consider favorably on this variance November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting request on behalf of the residents, the resident that has ambulation difficulties and who deserves a safe egress path to safety. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sir we have a letter that a neighbor submitted which is part of our public record and I'd like to give you an opportunity to address some of the points that she makes in this letter. I'm not going to read the entire letter cause it is rather long but I'm certainly going to I'd be glad to give you a copy. There are a couple of points that she's making in the letter, it would appear that the units the number of units may have increased allegedly on this multi-family property and certainly the parking lot and the number of cars seems to have increased and the lighting on the property in the parking lot seems to be somewhat problematic for her. It's probably not dark sky compliant. Moreover she alleges that the dumpster you know is not contained and some trash tends to get stewed around and that her privacy has been compromised in her back yard and suggests the possibility of some evergreen screening to at least contain that. Apparently there is no buffer at the rear of the property and the lights are shinning onto her property. Would you like to address? FRANK RESTITUTO : I'd like to address the first issue with the number of units. It has not increased. There were five units when we acquired the property. There are still five units one of which is being used for staff and four are occupied by the residents. So I want to clear that up. We did file for building permits I guess it was about two years ago with regard to parking area so we do have a building permit application as well as a certificate of occupancy for that work. The area was cleared to a limited extent in order to construct that parking area. The drainage and all of that is part of the application and as I said we have a certificate of occupancy. My understanding with the client is that the lighting has been redirected at some point. I do have representatives from Homes Anew who can elaborate on these things but I'm just giving you the high points. The lighting was redirected as far as I know and all I can say about the trash I mean they'll probably look into it and be a little bit more diligent as to how that's controlled. MEMBER DANTES : I'm just looking at since you brought up the C.O.'s I'm looking at my copy my package here that you guys submitted and I don't see a C.O. established in the building as a multi-family building or (inaudible) I just see the C.O. for the heating system, interior alterations. FRANK RESTITUTO : Well we acquired it as an apartment. MEMBER DANTES : But do you have a C.O. or a Pre C.O. FRANK RESTITUTO : That would be the original certificate of occupancy which I'm sure it must exist somewhere in the Building Department. MEMBER DANTES : Can you submit that to us? November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric I know we have had it in our records because when we granted the prior variance we had it as a multi-unit FRANK RESTITUTO : Homes Anew acquired the property as five apartments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see when was the prior decision. FRANK RESTITUTO : And that was not brought up when we filed for the first building permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm trying to remember when it was not that long ago. You may not have been on the Board Eric. MEMBER DANTES : The second one I was but that was just for a porch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you go to the podium please and state your name and cause we're recording it and indicate that you just submitted the C.O.? BRUNO SEMONE : I'm actually Bruno Semone. I live in Orient. I'm a resident of twenty years active in the community volunteering in the fire department along with other things. I made a FOIL of the copy I don't know the C.O. number and the building permit but it goes back to show that there were five units permitted in an apartment use back in the '70's. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so I'm going to read this and we'll put it in our file. This is a C.O. #128M-R dated December 12, 1972 indicating a five permanent occupancy apartment. Alright, let's look a little bit more let me see if the other Board members have any questions. Gerry do you have any questions about this? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : My only concern is that of the fact that Main Bayview is as we have just heard and we knew is a pretty well-traveled road and the speed has increased with some of the new paving that has occurred. Is there any reason why if the Board was so inclined to grant this and I'm not speaking for the Board I'm speaking for myself some sort of barrier between this proposed wheel chair ramp and the front property line could be erected so that no cars could actually try to penetrate that ramp in anyway? FRANK RESTITUTO : Well the way the property is situated the ramp is higher than the roadway it's elevated. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I understand that I was there. FRANK RESTITUTO : It slopes down the possibility of a vehicle hitting the ramp would be virtually non-existent. So it is elevated. When the individuals use the ramp they're going to be coming down to a sidewalk which would bring them around to the back of the property. They're not coming out towards the front of the property. That was an element that she November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting mentioned in the letter. They're not going to be coming down onto Main Bayview Rd. they'll be no drop offs or anything happening on Main Bayview Rd. All activities will be happening on the property. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : In the C.O.'ed parking lot? FRANK RESTITUTO : Right. MEMBER HORNING : When did Homes Anew acquire the property? FRANK RESTITUTO : 2001 MEMBER HORNING : When did the apparent need for the handicap ramp become noticeable? FRANK RESTITUTO : Several months ago maybe six months ago. MEMBER HORNING : And how were the people getting in and out of the structure right now then without FRANK RESTITUTO : Well there's a certain deterioration of the individual that is living in the residence right now. I have representatives that can expand on that if you'd like to hear that. MEMBER HORNING : I mean you're saying there's one resident that would need this? FRANK RESTITUTO : Yes and the ramp is right outside her bedroom. MEMBER HORNING : I see okay cause I was going to ask for alternative locations if you had looked at other. FRANK RESTITUTO : Yea the alternative location is not really possible. She's in that particular room in the front of the residence. She'll come out onto the porch and go right down the ramp. MEMBER HORNING : And this is for one particular resident? FRANK RESTITUTO :That is correct. MEMBER HORNING : For how many years would you anticipate that Homes Anew would be running this facility? FRANK RESTITUTO : Forever. They have no plans of not operating it. It'll continue. MEMBER HORNING : So potentially let's say futuristically if in fact you weren't running this facility there and it turns into a private residence again, multi-family whatever it could be conditioned so the handicap ramp could be removed or relocated? November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting FRANK RESTITUTO : Sure absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken questions? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea why can't the ramp be put on the what's that I guess the north side of the building. It looks like there's a large area there where you could put the ramp. FRANK RESTITUTO : Well as I said the ramp is outside her bedroom. It's convenient for her to come right outside the bedroom go right onto the ramp and then down to grade. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I'm looking at the floor plan here and it looks like she could get in to her bedroom by that location as well going through the living room into her bedroom and the ramp at that location would also be able to service more bedrooms in the event that I know the client needs to use a handicap access. FRANK RESTITUTO : I'd have to consult with my client to see if that's possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually I'd like to talk to someone from the organization about the nature of the residents. Would you state your name please? MARIA GALIANO : I'm Maria Galiano. I'm the operations director at 9625 Main Bayview Rd. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Generally speaking the Board of Appeals does not personalize variance relief because these variances run with the land once built and so while we certainly could be sympathetic about the need of one individual the greater picture is if this facility is providing residential services for people with disabilities of various kinds then in fact I think we could attach this proposed ramp to the nature of the entire project rather than an individual. Can you please address the kinds of services you provide and the particular residents that would qualify to live in your facility? MARIA GALIANO : Absolutely. So we help individuals with developmental disabilities. We help them to acclimate back into society. We help them learn how to cook, how to clean their residence, how to go grocery shopping, how to complete their laundry, how to get a job in the community. Some of them have goals in going back to school earning their GED's. We help them with whatever their goals are. So whatever they want in life that's what we're there for. We're open to any individual who has a developmental disability who would like to better their lives. Otherwise these individuals would be either in an institution, homeless on the streets, in and out of hospitals, nursing homes. This is an alternative that provides quality of life for these individuals just like you and I enjoy being out in the community this is what we do for them too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you anticipate any of the residents now or in the future having mobility impairments in addition to cognitive or developmental disabilities? November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MARIA GALIANO : Yes. The one individual that we're speaking to right now she did decline in her ability to move. At first she just required the wheelchair for long distance now she requires the wheelchair at all times. The reason why we're proposing this ramp for her specifically is if there's a fire in the living room that is her only mode of egress to get to a ramp that is located in the back of the property so that's why we're asking for the ramp to be in the front of the property as well if she's closed off from being able to evacuate through the back she now has a means to get out of her house safely and to our meeting place safely along with the staff member that's there to assist her. For our other individuals we do have an aging population. Right now our men are a little bit on the younger side but we do have another resident who lives in that same apartment who also has some mobility issues. She is also a fall risk so as she ages we expect that fall risk to continue and possibly increase. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the use of walkers is probably anticipated as well which does require a ramp? MARIA GALIANO : Yes. At first the first thing that we try is always a walker and then when it continues to decline then we use a wheelchair. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other comments or questions? MEMBER HORNING : I have another question. Are you saying does there exists right now any kind of handicap accessibility to the building? MARIA GALIANO : Yes there is one wheelchair ramp that leads up to the apartment which this individual lives in. It's located in the back of the property by the parking lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the setback in part that's proposed is 15 feet on one end and 7 on the other and the fact that this is on a very high berm and that the edge of the roadway is considerably farther away from that setback from the property line I think it's going to make the visual appearance of this proposed ramp unobtrusive and safe. What is the setback from the property line to the I'm looking at this and it's not showing yea sure go ahead Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Why have the wheelchair ramp come off the front there? Why not just push it off the side of this porch so that it doesn't increase the setback? MARIA GALIANO :That would be a question for our architect. MEMBER DANTES : Could he answer that question? It looks like he can just go off the side of the porch and maintain the existing setback and still accomplish the same goal. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting FRANK RESTITUTO : If the ramp were to come out straight the way you're saying it would come out let's see almost forty feet out this way back into this area back here. I was trying to compact it into this area. It would be stretched out way across the front (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : So then how come this ramp is it steeper or FRANK RESTITUTO :This is much closer MEMBER DANTES : On the grade? FRANK RESTITUTO : Yea the grade goes up this way so this is only like about twelve inches or so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So am I correct in summarizing that the reason the ramp needs to be in the front has to do with the existing natural topography of the property? MEMBER DANTES : How about can you come out this way and it's (inaudible) back a less of a variance? FRANK RESTITUTO : I could go out this way but we'd still have to turn around and come back this way so you're going to accomplish the same thing. (inaudible) (talking with Board member Dantes) MEMBER DANTES : But it's less of a variance. FRANK RESTITUTO : These things were thought out you know before this final configuration. When I was planning this I came out this way and came back down this way and I was still at the same place accomplishing the same thing. MEMBER DANTES : But what was the variance needed then. FRANK RESTITUTO : Probably about three feet less. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? CAROLINE CLEMENTS : Good morning I'm Caroline Clements and I am the property owner that is adjacent to the rear of this property that's in question. I am the author of the letter and the reason that I'm here this morning is again I'm apologize for my appearance. I worked an overnight shift last night and I have yet to go to bed since yesterday so but this is very important so sleep can always come at another time. I have no issue with people having a place to live, needing a place to be absolutely. As a paramedic I completely understand the needs of wheelchair ramps, stretchers I get it I totally get it and I have no opposition to someone having the means of egress in the event of an emergency so that's unfortunately what I'm all about. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting What I have issue with is that the property has significantly changed in recent months. The property has gone from a very quiet four, five unit rental building with only four or five cars to this large bustling commercial style facility with these lights that shine into my yard all night long. I have question as to whether or not there really is just five units inside of it because according to the website and the research that I've done and I proof of the fact that it says that it's boasting twelve available units, twelve. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have a copy of that? CAROLINE CLEMENTS : So you know both one and two units so that I mean twelve units, fourteen car you know parking spaces that makes sense to me if you do the math but I was never I would think that at the very least there would be the courtesy of a notification that hey we're going to expand, we're going to change kind of the way this is used or we're going to you know put a parking lot in the back yard you know as good neighbors I would think that someone would of at least had the courtesy to let me know that this was going to take place. The lights, the garbage sometimes and I can't tell you whether or not its people that work there or if it's occupants but there are people yelling and screaming at all hours of the days and nights. Just yesterday morning there were seven police cars in the parking lot for what I don't know but why would every practically every police patrol car in our entire town wind up in my back yard? I'm not quite sure. It's not as if I don't believe that people have they need a place to live it's good it's a good, good thing absolutely but my prior experience before I became a paramedic out here I work on Plum Island by the way I worked in the city in South Jamaica for the Catholic medical services so I have my fair share of experience with section 8 housing, with seeing people in various places and where they live and how they live and it's in my experience that if you offer section 8 housing to someone and only one person fits below the guidelines and they and that person say for example is disabled and they make below the means and you're offering them a two bedroom unit I have seen upwards of twelve people living within a two bedroom unit sleeping on floors, sleeping on couches or whatever and again I'm not saying that that's what happening here but I am saying that the propensity for those things to happen is there and I'm worried that the behaviors that I'm seeing that are taking place in this parking lot and everybody deserves to play basketball I'm all for it. My son's on the basketball team. But again at three o'clock in the morning, two o'clock in the morning yelling screaming, why are we, who's doing this? Why are we doing this? That makes no sense. It's disrupting every aspect of my life as far as the way I live within my home. I'm a single mother you know I moved my son from Wading River to here specifically to give him the quality of life that I think that he deserves to hopefully shield him a little bit from the outside influences but I got rap music at two o'clock in the morning vibrating the windows on my home. I've got my dog who's constantly on edge and can ever ever rest and I feel as though every time I'm in my back yard I'm being watched. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is your property located relative to this? CAROLINE CLEMENTS : I'm at the rear of their property so I have a birds eye view of the parking lot and the back yard and the solar panels and the smokers area and the garbage dumpster. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Zoning Board doesn't have any control over noise that is a code enforcement issue. There is a noise ordinance in the Town of Southold and the police can be notified of any violations of excessive noise particularly late in the evening. With regard to visual privacy the Board does have the jurisdiction to condition determinations, decisions that mitigate possible adverse impacts and I would like to give them an opportunity to address some of the comments that you've made. CAROLINE CLEMENTS : I have spoken between six and eight months ago with the town attorney's office right at the conclusion of the parking lot when the lights first started shinning and the town attorney had said that yes they were allowed to have this but they'll address the lights and a very, very, very minor change was made. It didn't really do much in the way of helping the situation shall we say and in the summer it's better cause there are some deciduous trees between my property and their own but in the winter it's full on it looks like CVS. It's not that much fun to look at and so if the lighting could be addressed, if a barrier a permanent evergreen buffer could be placed that would you know appease me. The garbage blowing into my yard again can it be contained, could it be I don't know possibly moved? We tend to get a lot of the south to north you know southwest to northeast sort of wind that travels through our area and it's inevitably always it's in that corner and that's where it goes right up into my yard. Whoever actually has purchased the property next to it will also have the same issues as myself. They just haven't moved in yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would someone from Homes Anew like to address or the architect address this? FRANK RESTITUTO : Yes I'd like to address the issue of the number of apartments. As was noted before earlier that the 1971 certificate of occupancy had five apartments there are still five apartments there. Where the twelve apartments came from I have no idea. CAROLINE CLEMENTS : Can I submit this then? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure you can. FRANK RESTITUTO : I don't know what they mean by twelve units. Are there twelve rooms? Possibly yes. Whether there's twelve apartments? No. There's only five. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well what's the difference between an apartment and a unit? November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting FRANK RESTITUTO : Someone would have to explain that to me I don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this does say eligibility program is section 8 11 and project rental assistance contracts. The size is twelve rent assisted units. Perhaps someone from Homes Anew could address that. FRANK RESTITUTO : Yea that's not factual. That's not a fact there's five units there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well hold it you have to speak into the mic and state your name. That's fine but you have to address the Board that way. BRUNO SEMONE : I'm sorry madam chairman it's Bruno Semone from Orient. It's clear that their advertising for more units or whatever they're calling it bedrooms assisted living beyond what they're actually saying five apartments. I mean the question here is really use. If they have five apartments then four apartments rented as per the architect and representative one unit is being used for staff I heard correct? So meaning that if one is used for staff is this now a twenty four hour facility where you have people paid to maintain everybody? FRANK RESTITUTO : Yes. BRUNO SEMONE : So we actually have a twenty four hour care facility. Kind of went beyond the five apartment use that was there. We have people working there at a place to assist really important placement of individuals cause we want that but that seems beyond just five rental apartments. It seems like it's a nursing home or assisted living. I'm just going and I'm not a building inspector so certainly that would have to come out of the Zoning Board but it just seems to go a little bit beyond and what's being asked for here is just privacy you know for adjoining neighbors. The use is a good use and the truth is the handicap ramp is a good thing. We want people that are disabled to be able to get in and out of the building no question about it whether or not it needs to go in the front or the side that's up to them so it's a positive thing to have the use and the handicap ramp be put in to make sure people can get in and out of the building. I'm all for that however, the good things that are being associated with the five apartments that are in this building should not take away from all the good things in Southold town. This is an R40 area. It's residential predominately there is no commercial establishments anywhere. This is now border lining on a commercial establishment and I'm going to tell you why. The architect stood up and indicated that he went to the Building Department and he got a permit and C.O. and I can give you the C.O. and that was doing an alteration. It wasn't a C.O. it was a certificate of compliance adding on to the existing C.O. and during that time he got approval for a parking lot a huge parking lot. In addition during that time they had solar panels they're actually six mounted in the back yard. They're not shown on your current site plan. It's a structure. It requires an electrical inspection maybe a permit depending on the Building November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting Department. That's not shown on and it's a good thing to go to solar energy but the site plan when it was submitted to the Building Department did not get endorsed as okay and approved for that parking lot. Residentially I guess you could pave your whole parcel but I'm not sure that we want a fourteen lot parking lot in someone's residential area. That's what they put in there without approval from the Planning Board. I'm thinking that the application is borderline knowing it's a twenty four hour facility. Even though it's residential and it was granted a ZBA for what it currently has is five apartments it seems like there needs to be some other work done. They did submit a site plan to your Board with this application. They submitted a site plan to the building inspector for the permit and C. of C. but somehow it was never reviewed. I mean looking at it knowing its borderline commercial, was drainage accounted for? Did the town engineer approve the drainage?There are other things that go into when you start to do that. I am certain that the engineers and architect that designed the site plan accommodated what's needed but it's supposed to be looked at by our town engineer to confirm that the rain runoff and water runoff isn't a problem. At the same time installing commercial lights in a residential R40 area on pedestals I mean that's becoming a parking lot. So we have stuff that has evolved for the good of the use and the occupants that needs to be addressed. I realize that what's in front of you is simply a handicap ramp and it's a setback issue for the front but the use of the property needs to be in front of you. You granted something way back when in the 70's. It's gone to some evolutions and they need to address the use and they need to address the privacy and the good of everybody around them. Thank God there's a private lot a vacant lot next to it that's been cleared. This young lady lives in the back. There's other residences that are being affected. Unfortunately the elevation and topographical changes in the property give her an elevated look so everybody is looking down at what's going on so they got a bird's eye view. So, a fence wouldn't really even an eight foot fence a six foot fence wouldn't even accommodate privacy. It needs to be a screened evergreen buffer in the back there and on the side to avoid everything because of the elevation changes. That's not her fault you know being able to go out or anybody's fault but the truth is that I think the stuff that's in front of you needs to be looked at. The letter is accurate. The truth is that the facility might have gone just way beyond the certificate of occupancy and see if that was issued with this current use. Good use sounds like, it's okay but seems like it might be one step beyond. Thank you. I'd appreciate the Board considering my comments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to explain what this is. This is not Homes Anew's website. This is a Section 8 housing credio.com website that indicates Homes Anew with the proper address and so on Main Bayview and it says this Section 8 housing program is intended for low income, physically disabled individuals. In order to qualify one of your family members must be physically disabled and your overall family income must be below fifty percent of the median income in your area. Now you know none of these things are really before the Board. What's November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting before us is a ramp but it would appear that the scope of the facility has in some way intensified. We're going to have to make sure that the lighting is dark sky compliant. At the very least we're going to have to make sure that an evergreen buffer maintained in perpetuity is established for the welfare of the rest of the residential neighbors that you have. I think these are all quite reasonable. No one is talking about not operating your facility. It does border I think on something a little bit beyond what the original multi-family five unit apartment building was doing. I don't know that in that history maybe Gerry you might remember but I believe those were just individual units. There was no one operating a care facility of any kind. I don't think your hearing objections about the use. I think it's just the impacts and if you have how many residents do you have in occupancy now? MARIA GALIANO : Hi again Maria Galiano. We have eight individuals who currently reside at the house on Main Bayview Rd. Just to clarify it is not Section 8 housing. This is a residential facility operated by family residences under the auspices of the OPWDD the office of persons with developmental disabilities. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so this is not correct? MARIA GALIANO : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. There's all kinds of websites so hold on one second you can come back to the mic one second. BRUNO SEMONE : Is it offset by additional state funding and housing costs for people that are in need? Do you receive payments from people because they're actually CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry you have to address the Board you can't talk to each other. BRUNO SEMONE : I'm sorry so I'm Bruno again from Orient Bruno Semone of Orient. Actually it's not Section 8 but is it offset by other funding for disabilities through the state and local that offset people to live housing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright now I'm going to ask the agent. MARIA GALIANO : So the individuals receive social security disability benefits and that is how they pay rent and maintain their residence. MEMBER HORNING : Are people living there with their families? MARIA GALIANO : No, it's just the individuals. They each have a staff member to assist them because they're in a new location. A lot of them came from Brooklyn area. Sometimes upstate areas so they don't know Southold very well so they each have a staff member that is assigned November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting to them to kind of help them and do any goals that they need. We are working on decreasing some of that staffing but for the one apartment that was talked about the staff apartment that is for staff who let's say they work a double to kind of help out and they need a place to rest before they get on the road. Blizzards, hurricanes so we don't have you know driving in inclement weather especially when there are road emergencies or road closures. They have a place where they can sit and make food for themselves eat and you know come back to work when their shift is ready. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you said you had four units occupied then by twelve residents? MARIA GALIANO : Eight. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eight residents okay and one unit that is staff occupancy and so you have eight residents and how many in staff do you have eight? MARIA GALIANO : Eight plus a nurse who comes for about between eight four to eight hours a week. We have behavior specialists who are there forty hours a week and then we also have a supervisor and assistant supervisors and me as well when I come by. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so thus the need for the larger parking area. MARIA GALIANO : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's residents and staff and it's a fairly large it's an almost a one to one ratio. MARIA GALIANO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : plus and let's think what else I wanted to just ask it just went right out of my head. So that's residency MEMBER HORNING : May I ask this question of the resident that you are applying for the handicap ramp is this an elderly person? MARIA GALIANO : Yes. She's in her 70's. MEMBER HORNING : So this person can very well pass away as the chairperson was saying and the variance would go with the land unless it was conditioned to be removed which would probably wouldn't want to do that so it makes having an alternative location more desirable in a way so that you know you could (inaudible) the use of everybody in that building or maybe that resident should move their unit if they could and swap around so that you could have a ramp in a different location. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MARIA GALIANO : Well unfortunately this resident the apartments are not interconnected so they all have entrances from the outside to each individual apartment so there's no way to get from let's say apartment 2 to apartment 4 so the individual in question is only in that apartment 3. The only other apartments that are really in another area that are on the first floor they only have one way in which they can exit and enter without creating you know holes in the walls and creating new doors. This already has a door that leads directly to her bedroom which is in the front of the property so it has the space needed to create that ramp for her. MEMBER HORNING : You're saying all of the units have access by the exterior? MARIA GALIANO : Yes. MEMBER HORNING : And there's no access in the building to those apartments? MARIA GALIANO : Correct. They each have a door and an egress window. MEMBER HORNING : So the staff that's there has to go outside the building and then walk around and back into a unit is that what you're saying? MARIA GALIANO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good that clarified some things. Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Why not just move the bed that person's bedroom to the bedroom closer to the ramp? MARIA GALIANO : Again the bedrooms that are in that apartment they both here's the front door is in the back of the property then becomes the living room bathroom two bedrooms. So basically whether she moved to a different bedroom anywhere in it's actually more enclosed the other bedroom that has an egress window for that resident to be able to exit. The only one that would really be accessible for her would be the bedroom that has the door leading straight outside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you want to come to the mic. CAROLINE CLEMENTS : Caroline Clements again and I have a few more print outs of stating what the use is of this particular CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright we'll take them. Well this one says it's advertised what's this housing apartments.org rental and this is a one bedroom two bedroom subsidized low rent apartment for disabled. I don't know apparently this is advertised in several places as low income rental facility for people with disabilities of it doesn't specify what kind of disabilities. Look I don't think that's what's before the Board. It's not you know it's a variance for a setback November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting for a ramp. I'm confident that the architect has explored alternatives and if we've all visited the site we've done site inspections and we certainly understand that the natural slope of the property requires certain kinds of conditions and that we'd ever grant a variance that doesn't require conformance to Chapter the storm water management chapter so if in fact there's a problem with drainage it will be addressed when the Building Department looks at a determination. If you'd like to yes you can come forward and I'll get to you in a second. FRANK RESTITUTO : Frank Restituto again. With regard to the design of the parking area I did meet with the town engineer and he gave me the town requirements for erosion prevention which I included in my drawings. We did discuss the drainage capacity that was required. New dry wells were put in the area of the parking area along with a trench drain which picks up all the water from the parking area. The house itself has drywells that take the rainwater from the roof into the drywells so that whole system is all on drywells. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's actually on the survey on the site plan. FRANK RESTITUTO : Yea it's on the site plan. I did not include the cesspools and other things that she was just talking about. It was not relevant to the variance. The other thing I want to point out in an effort to be a good neighbor to Southold Homes Anew has expended considerable amount of money residing the facility. We put a whole new roof structure on the facility trying to upgrade and you know keep up the standards that Southold is looking for so a lot of money was expended in that area as well but I did consult with the engineer to discuss the parking area and the drainage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright there's actually one other thing did you want to say something first? I had another question actually that I wanted to ask and that has to do with the kind of temporal nature of the activities in your residential property. There's been some testimony that there's been a lot of noise and activity quite late at night. What's that from and why is that happening or is it not happening in your opinion? MARIA GALIANO : For the music I can attest I have been there from seven a.m. to eleven p.m. a lot of times. I do have one member of another management from another house who has been doing a couple of overnights and I asked him about the noises, about the music, about the bass he hasn't heard it I haven't heard it. I'm not saying that you know that other people haven't heard it in the community but that's something we will work on. With these individuals with the screaming, the yelling unfortunately you know sometimes our individuals have a difficult time. They have a difficult night and they can't always express themselves in the most appropriate of ways. So that's why also we have a lot of staff there who can sit there and help these individuals and really bring them back down when they've escalated. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't work. You know when it doesn't work that is when we do have to call you November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting know the police to come and help us and you know that's why they're here to help us and provide a safe environment. We're trying we have a behavioral plan set up so that the staff knows what to do when a problem escalates. Unfortunately you know with some of our individuals when they get to a certain point we need help and assistance and they let it out in ways that you and I usually wouldn't let it out sometimes at two, three o'clock in the morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so you're saying that sometimes physical restraint is required? MARIA GALIANO : We haven't really done physical restraints too much at the property cause it's more of verbal than physical the nature of aggression so really it's about talking them down trying to find out what the problem is and trying to solve that problem right then and there as opposed to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The residents have any kind of restrictions boundary restrictions on where they can be at what time of the day or night? MARIA GALIANO : No we do not boundary restrictions however they do have a staff with them at all times. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so they're free to go outdoors at two in the morning if they want to. MARIA GALIANO : Yes, yes we're very into their rights. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well now it's kind of clear what's going on. We at least have a clear picture. I don't think that the neighbor sounds as though she doesn't understand or support the right of people with any kind of disability to live someplace but I think what she's looking for and it seems perfectly reasonable is some way of mitigating some of those impacts on her own quality of life. Did you want to say something now Bruno? BRUNO SEMONE : Yea the only thing I was just going to reiterate about is the fact that I agree with everything the Board's already discussed and even some of what the applicant discussed the truth is that it was granted a five apartment use way back when and five apartments and apartments defined by the code you certainly can look it up is not a commercial use. They have employees working there. They have staff members and I have to question it I'd like to ask the first thing is how many rooms how many bedrooms are in this house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well how many bedrooms do you have? MARIA GALIANO :Ten. 0 November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting BRUNO SEMONE : So the plans that were submitted show nine if I count right so we have MARIA GALIANO : It is I'm sorry, I'm sorry it is nine I'm counting also that one apartment that is for staff I apologize. BRUNO SEMONE : You certainly have rooms being used for more than just bedrooms cause obviously I mean it was admitted that there's basically two people in each one of the units eight residents which seem reasonable, eight staff people that are there on a daily basis, one nurse along with a behavioral specialist and somebody else so I count that there's eighteen people in that place on a daily basis during the day and that's not a concern you could have eighteen people at your home certainly five apartments but we have people working in a residential area and I just want to indicate that the zoning is under 280-16 the purpose is R40 it's clear what R40 was defined within the town code as and five units as a Special Exception granted back when as affordable housing in apartments truly apartments. The use that's going on there is not apartment use. It's more than apartment use. So the truth is that we've grown outside of where it should be. It should be in front of the ZBA. This should have gone to the Planning Board and I'm just going to reiterate R40 under 280-16 the purpose is low density residential R40 district. It's meant to keep existing neighborhoods within their characteristics. Right from the code so it's truly a use that has grown when they admitted that they have employees coming in and out of it ten different employees on a daily basis that's beyond a home improvement service, it's beyond a customary service. Maybe it's permitted by code if the ZBA looks at that and says that use is still within the R40 but it's certainly affecting the neighborhood and I think that even though we're in here for a variance maybe the use was never looked at before it needs to be looked at if the Board would please. That's all I have to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's certainly well that may be the case it's not what's before us now and I don't think we can address that particular issue in this application. It may require a different application. You know if it's exceeding what is generally defined as a residential use in that zone district then it probably needs to go either to a zone change or it needs to go before the Planning Board for site plan or it needs a Special Exception permit I don't really know the answer to that. I do know that they seem to be very committed to operating a well-run facility and that their the escalation of traffic and individuals the intensity of use on the property has increased and that it seems perfectly feasible given the nature of the population living there to have a wheelchair ramp. The setback in my opinion and I speak just for myself is not a big issue given the nature of the topography and the property line setback to the road edge and so on but clearly a number of other things have emerged as a result of this application. Let me ask you how you feel about readjusting the lighting to comply with the town codes dark skies compliance November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MARY GALIANO : We will do whatever we need to do to remain in compliance and to help improve quality of life with our neighbors. Our neighbors are definitely important to us especially family residences. We want to make sure everyone is excited to have us there and we actually have our neighbors are the ones who actually help at the house who are the staff members. People from Greenport, Southold, Mattituck they're the ones actually working in our facility and helping our individuals. So we want to make sure that we're definitely in compliance that our neighbors are happy because we want you and the rest of the members of the community to come help on a daily basis. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the very least I think MARY GALIANO : I mean it's a dream but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : we're going to have to do something about the lighting because you know it is bordering certainly on a commercial use with that kind of staff twenty four hours a day the mitigation of some visual impacts would be to provide a row of evergreen screening all along the rear of the property line something like Leyland cypress that might grow twelve fifteen feet tall and would be quite dense. The other thing would be to enclose the dumpster in some way to make sure the trash is contained and certainly the lighting. That's the very least that we can do in relationship to this application. It's appropriate that conditions go with variance relief. Beyond that we have to think about this and see if there's anything that can or should be done beyond this ramp application but that's for another day. Gerry did you say you wanted to say something? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just want to ask a question regarding the ramp and that bedroom you're talking about. Assuming that this person was moved to a different facility would you using that bedroom for people like this lady who has this type of disability and that ramp would be used in multiple situations? I'm going to raise this issue and it's not an issue regarding this we know that this is a wood framed structure. This is not like a school or an old warehouse that was taken over that's a cement structure so the burn factor from a fire department standpoint is much greater on a structure so you want to get her out as quickly as you can okay because of her disability is that correct? MARIA GALIANO : Correct. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So therefore it would be used again and again and again? MARIA GALIANO : Strong possibility. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank you. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? BRUNO SIMONE : I just have one other thing if I could and then I will be done is that they mentioned a lot about safety and obviously the ramps to preserve somebodies life preservation of life safety because there's an individual that needs this I know that it's not the tradition of the Board to send this to the fire department but is the fire department aware of that they have an extended use and they may have special things that they have to deal with when they do attend or show up at this house? It's not a bad idea since you're concerned about safety that at least the fire chief is notified that you got some special concerns so we can actually save the person if something happens and then lastly if the applicant is willing to plant Cypress I think that's a great suggestion just please dictate a certain height to start with so it does start off at something that will give the neighbors some privacy and I thank the Board for the time. I appreciate everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome Bruno anything else. MARIA GALIANO : Not from our end thank you so much for having us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to just close this or do we want to adjourn for two weeks to see if there's anything else that we can do other than what was just before us? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I think we should just close it. MEMBER HORNING : I do too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, hearing no further comments or questions I'm going to close I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING #7000— RANDI and FRED SILBER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Randi and Fred Silber #7000. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 2, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required side yard minimum setback of 10 feet, 2) less than the code required total side yard minimum setback of 25 feet located at 1570 Mason Drive (Adj. to Broadwaters Cove) in Cutchogue. Pat would you state your name for the record. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of my applicants the Silber's and I have Fred Silber with me today and any issues that might come up that I can't answer or he would be more appropriate to answer he's here. I put in front of you today I believe the photographs are already part of your packet but just in case I have additional or I have the photographs that were taken of the house. You can see that the house the addition being proposed is in line with the existing house. This house oh let me finish up with what I've given you. I also provided cause I know Mr. Horning likes this and always asks, I did a list of the variances in the neighborhood within the same water body adjacent properties so what I've done is taken the tax map numbers and I've attached the decisions so that you can see that this area has benefited from several from variances due to the uniqueness of every property being a pre- existing in size and in design. So I have that for you for your record. Also the plans I want to make sure you have the revised plans. My client brought and he was waiting for his architect all this time so I apologize that it comes to you so late. The date of the plans on the ledger shows 11/1/2016 and I've highlighted the revisions. They are not changing the setbacks so we're keeping to exactly the same setbacks that we had in the original plan but there's some interior modification of space and the second floor has the dormers. The smaller dormer is being extended along the roof line so what the second floor you see it's like a half story. The half story was ending at the sitting room but they actually extended it a little bit for a small study all in line with the current second story but it's really a half story because of it's the size. On the first floor we have an interior design change of the family room. It was a before identified as bedroom so what we did or my client did is the bedroom was relocated from the first floor where the family room is to the second floor so you can see that the bathroom and bedroom in the same space as it was proposed before just a relocation. The only additional extension towards the water is a porch which won't impact this application but it is going to be with the Trustees so ultimately after this hopefully once you've approved this I can go to the Trustees and seek to put in was it screened in or open porch, open porch, deck or covered deck not November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting covered open? Well he should call it a deck. So it's going to be a deck but it's again it has nothing to do with the variances before you. Does it all make sense to you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea sure absolutely. PAT MOORE : So I actually was I had represented Mrs. Kaufman who was the original owner here a lovely woman who unfortunately passed away from cancer and I started with her with her efforts to put in a new sanitary system and we were going through the health department and the covenants that were required for that. I met Fred at the closing and we spoke and he had intentions to renovate the house. The house has been pretty much kept original condition to a certain extent just because of the financial limitations that the prior owner. The house is going to be renovated improved and all within the character of the neighborhood which are mostly nice homes that have been kept up and renovated over the years. The addition is as you can see very modest. It's maintaining the existing setbacks. The addition on the seaward side we identified where new foundation is required because that obviously would require demolition for the new foundation to be put in. This house appears to have been done as an original cottage the first box the center part and then small additions were added towards the back and towards the side but those additions are the foundations are inadequate and need to be improved so the architect has advised those are that needs to be done so the architect provided what would be a blow up or a halo identifying where the new foundation area is and in the front there's a storage extension of the garage which is going to be a storage area and I think that has to be demolished also the foundation SOMEONE TALKING WITH PAT. PAT MOORE : Oh there you go. He's clarifying for me the addition of the five feet to enlarge the storage and provide for that covered porch in the front. On the left hand side you see the master bedroom as a blow up master bathroom pardon me master bedroom, master bathroom and that is a new foundation. Well the new septic system is a must and that's being relocated and a new one going in to the front. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we should just add that the application is for a single side yard setback at 7 feet where the code requires 10 and a total side yard of 18.9 where the code requires 25 this existing house predates zoning and the intent is to maintain the existing side yard setbacks. PAT MOORE :Thank you yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Not at this time. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George any questions? MEMBER HORNING : No other than what you reiterated the setback as they exist are not to be diminished. PAT MOORE : Right they're being maintained but because they're the additions are occurring and they're non-conforming we need the variance. MEMBER HORNING : The property record card to me is a little confusing. I don't think the current owner is listed on here. PAT MOORE : Not yet because the closing only occurred March so the assessor's don't have the records yet. It takes a while before the deed comes from the county and it gets into the town records but he is in fact they are the owners. MEMBER HORNING : As of? PAT MOORE : As of March of this year 2016. MEMBER HORNING : Alright thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Question on as you know my side yard situation with waterfront lots will continue as they should not be closed up in any way in reference to access to the rear yard which is the waterfront. PAT MOORE : Okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And if they are the fence situation or whatever is used should be able to be opened at all times for any access. PAT MOORE : Yea for fire (inaudible) purposes or emergency access. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I just have a quick comment. The septic system has been in disrepair for many years. I live in the neighborhood and it's the upgrade is a welcome relief. PAT MOORE : I know it was very difficult for Mrs. Kaufman to it took a while. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea she didn't have the means. PAT MOORE : No exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : We have a neighbor here but he's in favor so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as long as you took the time to come here you might as well put it in the record. JOHN MCQUADE : I'm John McQuade. I live at 1720 Mason Drive Cutchogue a neighbor of Fred's and I think we have no objection whatsoever to the new plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you sir. Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6985—JEROEN and ROBIN BOURS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jeroen and Robin Bours #6985. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15C and Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 1, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory garage and to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) proposed accessory garage exceeding the code permitted maximum 660 square feet in total size, 2) proposed additions and alterations to a single family dwelling is less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 660 Mill Creek Drive (Adj. to Hashamomuck Pond) in Southold. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Good morning. Patricia Moore on behalf of the Bours and Mr. and Mrs. Bours are here and so is their architect so where are you there you are okay just make sure I can identify everybody. So again to supplement your file I did do a search of the variances that have been granted in this neighborhood along Mill Creek Drive. This was an extensive list because I would say well more than fifty percent of the lots in this area have variances at least one variance if not multiple variances. In fact this property had been the subject of a variance at let me just look and see what in 2007 when the second the two story addition was added and it's adjacent to Mill Creek Drive. The Board recognized at the time that this property is unique in the sense that it has it's a let's call it a peninsula that is surrounded on three sides by Mill Creek Drive that makes a loop around the property. So the only rear yard is where the proposed garage is to be placed. With respect to the variances that we've asked for the variance for on the house is just a covered porch. It's trying to give some character to what is somewhat of a less than charming house as far as design and I know the belief is that adding a porch to this house one will give it character, it provides protection from rain and weather when they come into the front door and it provides just a rocking chair porch as I said giving it character. The setback is 26.4 from that corner. If you take the existing house it actually is closer to Mill Creek Drive so it's a lesser distance than what was the distance of the two story addition to Mill Creek Drive on the east side. With respect to the garage the garage is actually only it the garage building itself is less than the 650 square feet the maximum size and it's has it's under by 20 square feet. What brings it over the 650 is the covered porch that is on the side of the garage. Again trying to give a design element and character to what otherwise would be just a long, long garage. The design here is one purposely trying to maintain the proper setback from the rear yard be it in this case lot 43 tax lot 43. It give the owner the ability to use the front of the garage to the north where the driveway is there's an existing asphalt driveway. They can bring their car in where it shows ramp it's really just an apron but he architect or excuse me the surveyor chose to call is a ramp it's a standard apron to go into the garage. The access on the back side of the garage is for the just the kayaks and the boating and the beach storage that is necessary. Anytime someone you have a home there that you're second home you need storage. My memory was that there was a very small basement so as far as storage goes on this house it's very limited so the garage is really necessary accessory structure for the family. It's pretty straightforward as far as design and everything and again the garage itself is conforming. It's the covered porch element that brings it over the 650 square feet and I will address any questions you might have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well let's just make sure we have the right numbers. The accessory garage is proposed at 788 square feet. The garage itself is actually conforming at 630 square feet. PAT MOORE :The covered porch is November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Five foot by 31.5. PAT MOORE : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The front porch on the house is setback at 26 feet and it's proposed at 5 foot by 23.5 inches 23 feet 5 inches with the house is setback at 31.4 and 5 feet is certainly the fairly minimum depth of an open porch covered porch. I think covered porches are probably typical of residential properties and certainly there are enough examples of non- conforming setbacks there. I don't know that covered porches are typical of accessory garages nor do they in any way impact storage. I mean if storage is what's needed the garage is going to have to do the storing obviously unless you want to just put stacks of wood or something underneath an open porch. PAT MOORE : Well actually you're right on the money that there is actually the need for wood sack and also bicycles during the summertime just you know protection from the elements when they're in and out of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there are other ways to do that that's conforming many other ways on this property. We do acknowledge that it has three front yards which makes it more complicated to try and build anything but let's see what else the Board has to say, George do you have any questions? MEMBER HORNING : Did you consider alternative designs where you could perhaps attach the garage to the house? PAT MOORE : I will defer to who has that answer? JEROEN BOURS : Good morning my name is Jeroen Bours. The reason it was designed this way and not attached to the house is not to choke kind of the property from an aesthetic point of view. You walk around as a neighbor or you drive around you can see right through the property right now which doesn't you know visually is kind of pleasing because it gives you the it doesn't you're not being obstructed by buildings. Had we connected in any which way the garage to the house you would of kind of blocked any view. The way the garage was designed was literally by going to the neighbor upstairs to see what would block his view and it's not blocking anything nor does he care but we made sure that it didn't block any view so now with a design like this and a pleasing kind of overhang because it's not really a porch that is high up or anything like that you still as a neighbor walking around can look right through the property and you're not being obstructed. Had we built a normal block, blockish you know garage two cars next to each other for instance then again that whole view would have been blocked we wouldn't be standing here today but it wouldn't have been pleasing but now it's the way it's designed is very much with neighbors in mind, view in mind and aesthetics in mind. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER HORNING :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes. In situations like this and we realize that the overhang exceeds the square footage I usually ask why you can't put an awning over a retractable awning so that when you want it out you put it out when in the case of a storm you retract it back and so that's the question. JEROEN BOURS : I think it's just a matter of that is absolutely practical and on paper it sounds very practical but I think architecturally and pleasing to the eye a committed overhang slight overhand as we're proposing is just prettier. It will have the feeling of a more than just a garage. It's just looks richer and it fits better with the house I think and also with the proposed other porch the real porch in front of the front door. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay you have to suggest that I have to ask that question okay based upon the fact that it's open on three sides you know so the other thing is just a retractable awning. JEROEN BOURS : And also I don't know if this helps or has any standing but I'm an immigrant. I'm from Holland and these kind of porches are very common there around farm houses and people store things like don't laugh wooden shoes etc. etc. under those porches and I intend to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you do have the option of either getting rid of the porch or changing the configuration to make the porch smaller or the garage smaller. I mean there are ways you can have everything you want and the shape you want and still be conforming. The Board is only allowed to really grant variances when there's an absolute necessity and the minimum variance that we can possibly get away with because it's justifiable for some various reasons cause it meets the standards within our code. So you know I think you still have all the choices before you but you can be conforming with the garage. I'm not speaking for the rest of the Board because we have five votes on this Board but I certainly have no problem with your front porch. It seems you know on a house but typically you would not be enlarging and creating a non-conformity on an accessory garage for the purpose of an overhang. Let's see what the rest of the Board has to say. PAT MOORE : Would you like to hear from Meryll regarding the design and how we might be able to modify the we're really only talking about the overhang MEMBER GOEHRINGER : On the garage. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Well the garage size itself is conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it is. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No, no, but on the garage. PAT MOORE : Yes, yes on the garage I'm sorry on the garage yes no the one on the house is really the minimum useable porch and as he pointed out culturally he does remove his shoes before going into the house so it is that's why porches again are a practical necessity so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I get that I came back from Amsterdam on Monday with a horrible cold. MERYLL KRAMER : My name is Meryll Kramer I'm the architect on the project and I just wanted to address the one question that you just had about attaching the garage onto the house and I know the garage is conforming and that's really not the issue it is the porch but I just wanted to say that it would have been completely not practical given the layout of the house to put the garage attached to the porch because the there's a bedroom on one side and a living room on the other and typically when you have a garage you want to arrive into a space that's adjacent to the kitchen or some sort of utility area and that is located in this house kind of centered and we would not have been able to put a garage to arrive anywhere we would have had to renovate the entire house in order to accommodate that garage entry. So I do have a question for the Board and that is would you because this covered porch is something that the owner's felt very strongly on the garage would help with the aesthetics and it is both from a functional reason and an aesthetic reason and something that is significant and important to them, is there any you said within your decision making process without having to come back and forth and back and forth is there an amount that you would consider reasonable to request? Is there any amount over the minimum or the maximum square footage is there an amount that you would consider reasonable? PAT MOORE : A diminimus amount that cause what I was thinking was that we know we have 20 square feet that it would be conforming we have an extra 20 that we could apply to the cover just really talking of roof overhang. MEMBER DANTES : You gave us that list of variances what's the precedent? PAT MOORE : Oh with respect with all the variances that have been granted? MEMBER DANTES : The garage the oversize to exceed the size of the (inaudible) November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yea well remember that the code requirement on size of the garage is not is the space the interior space the volumes so the reason that I know Leslie you were involved and Gerry I don't know MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Not necessarily. PAT MOORE : Okay well it would seem to me that the 650 square feet is for purposes in maintaining volumes and size so that it doesn't overwhelm a piece of property and it doesn't become a primary versus the accessory use. All the different variances here have been setback variances because most of these properties are undersized there's lot 40 had an accessory building in a side yard. We don't have that variance. Many of these variances occurred before the code change on the size of garages so again we have a conforming location of the garage, size of the garage and we could again because it's aesthetics it's just the design to try to break up the 45 feet of length on the building you try to create a design element that breaks that space. It's now 5 feet by 31, the additional porch on the house is 23.5. If it possibly could be reduced down to the size equivalent of the porch on the house then you have a kind of a design of the two structures the two porches that are equivalent that would only we could you'd have to do the numbers for me we have 20 square feet of compliance 150 minus 20 so we have only 130 square feet of non-conformity again as an open roof that being the only variance and again a diminimus variance which leads to a design element rather than volume of the garage itself so we're trying to come up with since the porch they wouldn't be here if the porch on the garage wasn't an important aspect to this design. To try to redesign this in some way so that we still have some architectural design that mimics one with the other it would seem to me that that would be a compromise that I see you're shaking your head yes and if the Board would consider it it would be again a very diminimus (talking with the architect) why don't you give me the numbers. Well 5 by 23 1 did the numbers could you put it on please no just give us the numbers if you would if you have them in your head. MERYLL KRAMER : I was saying we would reduce if the proposed covered porch at the garage were reduced by ten feet then we would be reducing our overall square footage by 150 feet because it would be 10 times 5. 1 mean I'm sorry fifty feet, fifty feet. PAT MOORE : Reducing it by 50 feet. So you'd be down to 127.5, again these are diminimus variances that are purely for the design not for you can't reduce the width of the garage because you won't fit the car in. MEMBER HORNING : Is this designed as a single car garage? November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It is. It's a one story single car garage with extra space for the kayaks and so on. His kayaks are not like my kayaks. Mine are the resin kayaks. His are actually what did you say they were Teflon, Kevlar. MEMBER HORNING : What kind of utilities are proposed in the garage? PAT MOORE : Oh light, electrical no water. JEROEN BOURS : No nothing light no bathroom no running water nothing. PAT MOORE :Just a lightbulb. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Just a couple of technical ones. There's a shed on the property I don't see it on the survey. PAT MOORE : It's actually where this garage is now so the shed is going away, yes? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Are you relocating it on the property? PAT MOORE : No. JEROEN BOURS :Throw it away. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Just a technical note the lot area I know you're not here for lot coverage but the lot area on the survey indicates 17,951 square feet the previous variance indicates a lot area as 19,173 that's just a technical thing. PAT MOORE : Yeah you know I noticed the two different numbers MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So that's something you might want to look at in future if ever need be like a lot coverage or whatever. Secondly the porch that's proposed attached to the dwelling the setback proposed is at 26.4 feet and now I would just make a comment that that setback increases as you go along Mill Creek because of the curvature of the road and I just make a comment that I believe that you could build a garage similar in character to what you propose at a conforming square footage of 660 and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you know you do have options if you cut back the length of the garage a bit and cut back the length of the porch a bit. The code allows a maximum of 660. The November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting garage is currently proposed at 630 so you know if you want to chop off a little bit here and keep the porch and chop off a bit of the porch there's ways that you can still have a long narrow garage and still have a porch and still be conforming. As I said you know if you're saying it's diminimus in our estimation is two or three, four percent maybe maximum beyond what the code permits but there's got to be a reason for even a diminimus and aesthetics while as someone who knows about aesthetics because I'm very sensitive to that stuff and architecture is my background it isn't a part of our code. It doesn't say that aesthetics unless it represents character of the neighborhood and you can show lots of other accessory garages with covered porches that are larger than what the code permits it isn't part of the characteristic of the neighborhood. Not this neighborhood maybe characteristic of Holland but it isn't characteristic of this neighborhood so I think you have to really stop and think about it if you want to come in with an amended application that shows what you think we would think is diminimus and the Board agrees that it really is diminimus so why not then fine but the Board's been inclined as you know Pat to really adhere to the code when reasonable to do so and not you know grant variance relief when it's justifiable but there's every reason in the world why this can be conforming one way or another and still have everything not the same size but still have what you want. PAT MOORE : Right, I understand but it is on a case by case basis and the non-conformity of the roof if facing this particular house it's a courtyard in a sense so it's not impacting neighbors in any way that it's again we're not trying to increase the volume of the garage so as to impact the neighborhood. It really is truly aesthetic design element. I know that I don't know about garages but overhanging roofs can be can extend what 24 inches I believe is the standard 28 inches what is the overhang, 24 so generally you can do a roof overhang that's not considered square footage. Unfortunately when you're designing a garage that overhangs because you're looking at the roof the footprint CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's lower than so it becomes a porch. PAT MOORE : and it's lower so just the way the code is written even a little overhang that would be otherwise allowed is considered lot CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look you still have 30 square feet to attach to your garage and be conforming. It would be small you know. PAT MOORE : It would be very small yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do it over the entry door wherever you want I mean knock off five feet off the length of the garage and make the porch a little bigger. In other words we're not here to design it for you. We're here to really discuss whether or not this is a reasonable November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting request. I don't think people are arguing about a front porch on a house with a fairly minor setback when the house is already non-conforming in its setback and you have three front yards. That seems perfectly feasible and front porches are characteristic of many residential properties. The garage is another story. You chose to do something that looks a little unorthodox for most accessory garages but that's your prerogative. You can do that legally on your property. That's up to you but we're just saying that we have to have justification for an excessive size. Is there anything else from the Board? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Go to the podium and state your name. JOHN FORESTIERI : Hi my name is John Forestieri, neighbor. So regarding the porch attached to the house my concern would be the roof. Are we talking flat roof are we talking what we received in the mail was very minimal in terms of information so my thought is when you look at this porch are we talking flat roof or is it going to be a significant roof that matches okay the question they just answered. I had large shed you already discussed that. The garage I would say and I don't mean this in any derogatory way or however it may sound when I first saw it I said that looks like a trailer looks like a mobile home because long and thin it's not a typical garage. That would be my concern from an aesthetic point of view. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you've just summarized very nicely why the Zoning Board does not get involved with aesthetics. They are very personal and we don't legislate taste that's really entirely up to people's property rights as long as they're conforming to the code and they have the right to do what they want on a residential property. JOHN FORESTIERI : Well I would just suggest if you are it seems they will be making some changes that they consider a more typical shaped garage because the gentleman is addressing aesthetics if that's his concern he should consider that this long thing that looks to me like a trailer cause once it's closed and all of that it's going to be this building. I would say try to shift it to a more conventional garage and you have and on the south side of that property you could see there's a ton of land there that's not being used so they could do many different configurations and let's see and looking through the property I don't see that especially if you're going to add a porch you're actually cutting off more of the ability to look through the property so I don't get that logic. That's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you for your comments anything else from the Board? Okay hearing no further questions anyone else in the audience? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER SHNEIDER : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6993—STEPHEN ALBERTSON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Stephen Albertson #6993. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-13 and the Building Inspector's August 4, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to legalize "as built" third story alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) more than the code required maximum allowed two and one half stories located at 1295 Custer Avenue in Southold. Is there someone here? State your name please. CHARLES SOUTHARD : Good morning I'm Charles W. Southard Jr. registered architect I'm the project architect. I have the Albertson's here with me if there's any questions that we need to address for them. This is a request to legalize the third story. This was this structure was originally a barn built in 1904. In 2004 it was converted to a residence. This is the structure is intact as it was in 1904. This is the height there was no additions to the house as far as height goes. There was an addition to the rear for additional space but the structure is an original old barn. When it was converted the space was there. They added two rooms in the upper part of the house. Now they're selling the house they needed to get a C.O. to legalize this additional space. The town of Southold code allows a structure a residential structure of 2 % stories or thirty five feet whichever is less I think is the way the code reads. The New York State building code permits three stories now, the code was changed I believe in 2010 which permits that a residence can be three stories in height as long as there is a limited fire sprinkler system to November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting enable people to get out of that third story safely in case of a fire. What we're here for is to ask for a variance from this code to allow a third story. There already has been a fire sprinkler system added to the house. It's been inspected by fire marshal. It's been approved and we're pending this hearing we're waiting for this decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so this conversion was done this third story habitable space was done without benefit of a permit or C.O? CHARLES SOUTHARD :That's correct it was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it is now it has been inspected for the sprinkler system that you're in the process CHARLES SOUTHARD : Yes it has. We have the certificate from fire marshal to approve it. I'm sorry plumbing inspector. Oh it is fire marshal. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Fire marshal no a plumber has to look at it but a fire marshal approves it. I understand it's bedroom and bathroom upstairs? CHARLES SOUTHARD : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see what the Board has to say. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well I don't know what to say I mean there's a bathroom upstairs it's clearly living space which is not permitted. That's all I can say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions about it? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No it was built without the benefit of a permit had a permit been acquired you would of found out it was not (inaudible) to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have instances throughout the town in which we have granted some third story habitable space. Typically they were not sleeping space. They might have been a sitting room a viewing an office a hobby room of some sort. Rarely any kind of bathroom granted on the third floor so there is some precedent for allowing it particularly with sprinklers installed but it's difficult for the Board to reconcile you know a sleeping space for the full bedroom and bathroom and that's what I think Ken was basically saying. We'll have to think long and hard about it. Eric you got any questions or comments? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I regret that I wasn't able personally to do a site inspection as you know the Board members did come out and do that. We do that with all of these kinds of November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting interior like bed and breakfasts and third story so when we do interior inspections I've just was recovery from an absolutely horrendous cold that prevented me from doing it personally but the rest of the Board has seen the property so they're very aware of what's going on there. Gerry do you have any questions or comments? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well my only comment is that the bedrooms on the walkway which lead to this third story use do not have bathroom facilities so I suspect MEMBER DANTES : I don't know Gerry it looks like on the floor plans there's a bathroom in the hallway like in between the bedrooms. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Is there a bathroom in the hallway between the bedrooms? CHARLES SOUTHARD : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay we did not see that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so there's a bathroom on the second floor is that what you're saying? CHARLES SOUTHARD : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then you just go up one more and there's another bedroom and bathroom. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So I was not aware of that and I apologize. For some reason I missed it on the plans. In any case as Leslie has said we have granted these in the past and in some cases and I don't think we've ever done it but we could actually request a locking off of that third room and not to be used only to be used as an attic so to speak and I mean that's the only option that I can think of at this particular time and by putting the same type of doorways barn doorways that you have or just locking it off with a normal doorway with a solid core door and dealing with that aspect of it and that's just my opinion. CHARLES SOUTHARD : If this was an attic then we wouldn't need a variance because an attic would be permitted without a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's right. CHARLES SOUTHARD : And there are a number of structures like this within the town I've done a couple of them. In most of the cases their access was through another space through a bedroom. If you had something it went through another space. This one has its own separate exit. This has its own separate stairway and a hallway. It doesn't go through another space 3 November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting other than the living area downstairs and NYS code permits this with a fire sprinkler system which has been added. MEMBER HORNING : As it is built there is one access to the third floor? CHARLES SOUTHARD : Well there are actually two because there's an escape window on the east side of the house. There's a window that's just above a lower roof so that qualifies as a second means of egress so there are two means of egress from this space. MEMBER HORNING : Any event of a fire and there was someone on the third floor watching T.V. let's say whatever they were doing cause I'm not sure we're granting a bedroom or a sitting room here but let's say in the event of a fire they cannot go down the main entry. They go out this window then what happens? CHARLES SOUTHARD : Well that's the purpose of the fire sprinkler system in the hallway. The entire access roof from the third floor is sprinkled with fire sprinklers. It's an automatic system that will automatically go off in case of a fire. It goes down the hallway, down the stairway and then across the living room to a rear door and it also goes across the interior hallway to the front door. So there are two means that are sprinkled to get out of this house from the third floor and then there is a as I say bedrooms require an egress window and that's what this had this also has an egress window which can be accessed from the east side of the building. MEMBER HORNING : So you're describing that in the event of a fire the fire sprinkler goes off its not only on the third floor it covers portions of the second floor correct? CHARLES SOUTHARD : It covers the third story the access on the second story and the first story all the way there are two paths to the doors in the house, one front door one rear door. It's entirely sprinkled. MEMBER HORNING : Okay describe this idea of going out the window. Then what happens if someone has to go out the window? CHARLES SOUTHARD : Well every structure has to have an egress window out of a bedroom other than the main access door. That's for the purpose for the fire department with their ladder to put it up to the window so somebody can be accessed out of there. That's typical in any house. This window is only 18 foot above the ground so it's easily accessed. MEMBER HORNING : Eighteen feet oh above from outside CHARLES SOUTHARD : Eighteen feet above the ground to the window so it's easily accessed with a ladder which is typical of any second story house you know every bedroom has to have this egress window and this does. 3 November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can you show me where that window is in this plan please. I didn't see the window. CHARLES SOUTHARD :This is the fire sprinkler drawing. The window is over here CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry turn your microphone around. CHARLES SOUTHARD : If you look at this site plan you see this little roof this little bump out that's a one story bump out okay and that window that we're talking about is above this it shows on the there it is that's it right there. MEMBER GEOHRINGER : That's it right there okay. Now to capitalize on that aspect we have required chain ladders okay as drop outs from that window and so I'm just mentioning that. CHARLES SOUTHARD : That's not a problem to put one. It's not a problem if you wanted to have a fixed ladder. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well the problem with fixed ladders are you don't know what the weather situation is. When you have a drop out ladder your clean you're going out I'm just saying CHARLES SOUTHARD : Nope that's fair enough. Whatever you would like that can easily be added. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'm just mentioning it as an option to the Chairperson. MEMBER HORNING : When you're using that window to get out of the building how big of an opening is there going to be I mean is I forget I saw it yesterday but is it a double hung window? CHARLES SOUTHARD : Yes it is. MEMBER HORNING So you open the lower portion of it and is there a way to get those dimensions of how MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It must be five square feet. CHARLES SOUTHARD : Let me see if I can find another plan to bring it up to you. Those are all the fire sprinkler drawings there's an architectural plan. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well you can tell us what the size of the window is. CHARLES SOUTHARD : It appears the only drawings you have are my fire sprinkler drawings and not the actual architectural drawings. Can I see that photograph again I can tell you pretty close if I can see that photograph. That's double hung window and my best guess now and I can give 3 November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting you exact on it that does meet egress code. Egress code is 5.7 square feet and a minimum of 24 inches opening. I believe it does meet that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody, anyone else in the audience wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6995—JOSEPH and LINDA SCIOTTO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Joseph and Linda Sciotto #6995. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's June 22, 2016 amended July 28, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory deck at 1) less than the code required rear yard minimum setback of 10 feet located at 8380 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. (Adj. to the Peconic Bay) in Laurel. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning Mike Kimack for the applicant Joseph Sciotto. This is an application to replace a deck that had not been permitted. It had been in place several years. There's a lower bulkhead and there's an upper bulkhead or retaining wall essentially you don't refer to it as a bulkhead but a twelve foot separation and that upper bulkhead raises about six feet from the lower one and the deck is situated in between or proposed deck is situated in between the two. There would be a set of stairs coming off the upper bulkhead to the deck and November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting then the deck would have another set of stairs going down to the beach area that is associated laid out between that lower bulkhead and the upper one and then also down to the beach itself to the water area. I think you've got the schematic drawing of the deck that was prepared by Mark Schwartz A.I.A. in your file. It is the deck that's laid out less than two hundred square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's funny because we were looking back and forth at Trustees approvals and several different surveys and I found in some Trustee records showing bulkhead repairs and a deck at 12 foot by 16 feet that was not damaged. That was noted on a survey but it didn't show the deck. Then there's a C.O. dated August 2, 1993 for stairs, landings and promenade deck between wall and bulkhead as applied for and that's number Z22493. That sounds as though there was something there before that was permitted. Was that what we're talking about or MIKE KIMACK : That's what we're talking about and I have to apologize because I didn't I got all of the I downloaded all of the Z's basically and I had them as part of the application as part of the certificate of occupancy etc. and when I looked on the line I was looking specifically for the deck also because the deck had been there for years and apparently had survived several storms and it didn't survive the big one that came through there basically but the deck itself if you look at the drawing the proposed deck location that deck that had been badly damaged and removed was easterly of that one by about twenty five feet more center of the property and this one is being asked to be moved over within setting back with the ten feet from the side from the side piece of property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you seen these two documents that staff did the research on? See there's that and then there's this. This survey that shows MIKE KIMACK :That's funny because I asked for certificates of occupancy from the town and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And didn't get it well Kim did Kim got it. Then there's this see there's this thing from the Trustees permit that shows a deck not damaged exactly not where you're proposing in the between the same timber walls bulkhead and MIKE KIMACK :That one I basically knew about we were moving this one over but (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well we finally kind of figured this out that the C.O. was probably for this deck that is no longer there. MIKE KIMACK : Yes and also it was confusing because they had another deck attached to the house that they had approval for that is not part of your jurisdiction decision today but just to let you know from a factual discussion that deck is now being removed and turned into the November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting patio pool that you see also on the same survey drawing. It had received the D.E.C. approval. They did non-jurisdiction landward of the bulkhead and they kept jurisdiction on the staircase. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we know by visual inspection of the property that neighbors on either side have exactly the same sort of decking and landing. MIKE KIMACK : Architecturally it was a breeze on this one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you happen to know if there are others along this you know Peconic Bay that are MIKE KIMACK : You know the whole area through there is all bulk headed. There's a whole patchwork of different types of decks and etc. Some on the higher level some on the lower level etc. like that all the way through. God forbid I don't want to go in and to get anybody in trouble by saying pointing it out because they don't have a permit you know for it but visually the whole area is pretty much been developed with bulkheads not necessarily the second bulkhead retaining wall as the Sciotto's have it but certainly with the deck almost identical next door and then several houses down moving in there's a whole series of decks also above the bulkhead. So it really was clearly intended what had been there and finding out now that it had been approved by the Trustees and kept within the less than the two hundred square foot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I should just simply state for the record that this constructed deck that's being proposed to be built is at 0 feet it's on the property line from the rear yard. MIKE KIMACK : We moved it back two feet. The new one originally was flat on the bulkhead but this one is moved back. The original one was all the way from the retaining wall even with the front of the bulkhead. This one was pulled back two feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So was the Notice of Disapproval inaccurate? MIKE KIMACK : No the Notice of Disapproval was rewritten. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says 0 feet from the property line on in fact on the property line from the rear property line. That's what that's the one I've got and it's dated amended July 28, 2016. MIKE KIMACK : It was amended it doesn't say the one that I've got the June 22nd one correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :June 22 then I've got one that's amended July 28th 2016. MIKE KIMACK :That's the one that was amended because I pulled it back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :To reflect plans received on but then they didn't amend the setback. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yea they didn't amend the setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So is this what you're proposing? MIKE KIMACK : Yes, yes I can get (away from microphone-inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we're going to need that. MIKE KIMACK : No this is the old one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so that's confusing right you're now saying you've cut it back so it's a two foot setback? MIKE KIMACK : This should be you should have the new (away from microphone) See the dimensions have been well what I did basically is rather than the fourteen (inaudible) on Leslie's drawing I think that particular dimension MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We don't have that Kim can you copy that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One second let's get this straight now. This is what we're looking at. MIKE KIMACK : It's no longer 13.5 it's 11 it's come back two feet. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So then this original one here with the photographs that you submitted with the 13.5 MIKE KIMACK :That's been changed. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That was that relates to the June 22nd Notice of Disapproval. MIKE KIMACK :That's correct and then I was asked basically MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Then you amended it and then the new long survey MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible) with the new survey submitted yeah. MEMBER SCHNEIDER That shows 11.4 now for the width is pertinent to this amended application of July 281" MIKE KIMACK : Yes and what you don't have is the amended Disapproval does not show CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That it's two feet. MIKE KIMACK : That it's two feet. I went from the 13.5 to 11.4. 1 know it's a little bit confusing but November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No it's not anymore. BOARD SECRETARY : So it's no longer 0 it's 2 feet? MIKE KIMACK :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you went from 13.5 to 11.4 deck size? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's now a two foot bulkhead setback. So you're going to get up that amended notice and let me make sure we have the right survey though to stamp is that what this is? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We need a copy. MIKE KIMACK : You got that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's this. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The larger one. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I need a copy of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This one right, that one?That's the right one. BOARD SECRETARY : It was stamped in in August. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the one alright yeah okay we have it. MIKE KIMACK : Okay so just he Disapproval that is showing the two foot setback that would satisfy the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep I think so don't you guys think so? MEMBER DANTES : Wait when was this deck approved? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was a deck that was approved in you know in between the retaining wall and the bulkhead MEMBER DANTES : By us? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a C.O. from 1993 that shows an approval and then the Trustees did an approval on June 20, 2007 that's this that's all the stuff that Kim sent us that's additional information. Mike while we're here November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : She's a better researcher than I am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She's good at it. Do you want to address the LWRP which says that it's inconsistent? MIKE KIMACK : Yeah I do. It's interesting the definition between a landing and a deck basically you know the landing to a hundred square feet and the deck to less than two hundred square feet and they look at it as saying instead of stairs coming in to it and leaving it more or less represents a landing that's not really an accurate portrayal because we had several, several approvals of decks that are basically off the bulkhead etc. because you got a set of stairs going down to them then you got a set of stairs going off of them down to the water so under that definition to me the landing is simply a means of correctional transport down a set of stairs. It's not an ending point which is the deck itself. In this particular case and other cases that we've had before you that I've had where we've had decks that we've gone off the set of stairs going down to them and then another set of stairs going off of that down to the water. So under that definition that would also be there'd never be any deck like this and certainly the ones that you approved before. To me the landing really is that transitional horizontal platform to allow a steep transition down a slope in order to make it much more safe essential like that but when you get down to a point where you finally arrive even though you've got a set of stairs coming into it instead of stairs going away to it like in most cases on the bulkheads and so which the Trustees have approved before and they just approved I had one before you under Perez which didn't come under your jurisdiction same exact situation a set of stairs going down and a set of stairs going away approved as a deck not as a landing. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well if we expand on that then in this particular application you can take a staircase from the retaining wall down to the grassy area between the retaining wall and the bulkhead and not have deck and walk over to the next set of stairs that transitions from the top of the bulkhead to the bay. MIKE KIMACK : Yea in this case they're giving up their deck at the house and their replacing it with the deck here. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You don't need a landing. MIKE KIMACK :Technically you don't need a landing per say. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You just walk on the grass. So if we were to expand on that could they not put down some type of pervious pavers or something to avoid having a deck or would that not be (inaudible) November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : That would still be under Trustees anything unnatural for Trustees would still be considered a they would still look at it under the less than two hundred square foot definition. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So we're going for less than two hundred square foot. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah that I knew automatically. That if you take your 11.4 by 17.3 1 think it's 196. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yeah something like that. You're saying it's not a landing because it MIKE KIMACK : It's not a landing because you got there. The landing is the ability to get to someplace else. I mean in an unconventional way of saying it but a more that's what you're doing with a landing it's a transition point with a staircase going down to get to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well right now what you have is sand. MIKE KIMACK : Right now what we have is sand for the most part. Yeah it's all sand. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a question please? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No between the retaining wall and the bulkhead is sand. MIKE KIMACK : And that answers the second question because I think the other part of the LWRP is that there was a buffer that was originally approved and never done. I suggest to you we do have the twelve foot technically between the bulkhead and the retaining wall is your non-turf buffer which is all sand so that part is in compliance. We don't have to do a buffer on the top of the second bulkhead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's landward of the retaining wall. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah that's landward of the retaining wall. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You do not have to do that? MIKE KIMACK : We shouldn't have to because we got our non-turf buffer in place now which is the sand itself. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I understand that but you know you gotta remember one thing Mike that you want to talk about what happened with storm Sandy. Everything was ripped out halfway west of this all the way down and not only was everything that you have infrastructure here I mean the bulkhead exists now cause it was replaced but everything was ripped out so this is brand new but the thing the concern that I have is not a concern it's more of an environmental one and that is this is supposedly going back to the Trustees after our decision. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yes it has to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yeah it's going to have to have Trustee approval. MEMBER GOEHRINGER You need to figure out the ACQ right now and composite decking okay. You need to ask them what the stringers are going to be going down to the beach or going down to MIKE KIMACK : I can tell you exactly what they are cause I design these they're all 3 by 12's all bolted together and bolted to the pilings. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : But what's is it composite material on the decking? MIKE KIMACK : Basically on the staircases it's all 3 by 12's. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What? MIKE KIMACK : 3 by 12's. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : 3 by 12's. MIKE KIMACK : And on the decking itself it could be composite or it could be the thru flow. I think in this case I think we have MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You're showing ACQ right now whatever the new derivative is. MIKE KIMACK : Well I'm showing no ACQ as a structure not as a decking. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Oh ACQ yes as a structure right. You're showing composite on this plan. Composite material is the decking. MIKE KIMACK : Yes composite you know basically obviously I'm not going to recommend to my clients mahogany or teak which would be quite nice but the composite but either that or the thru flow from a structural point of view the thru flow with their four screws every two feet George would hold pretty well. I'm more concerned when I design these is really the structural aspect of it. I put them in to withstand Sandy and they will. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I need to correct the record here. Kim did a great job of researching. The reason you didn't find this certificate of occupancy was because you now just pointed out your applicant's property is lot 20 and this is 21. This is the neighbor's certificate of occupancy. That's why it didn't I was looking for one and I found one but it wasn't for your lot. MIKE KIMACK : Had I found it that would have been part of my setting my precedent determination showing you that you already approved one next door thank you very much. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I saw the deck next door and I asked Kim did they have a permit for that and they do and then that helps his case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes exactly. MIKE KIMACK : And when I did you know I try to come to you with precedent setting. I wasn't able to find it obviously because you know I didn't pick it up so thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean we visually inspected it and saw it but this was this is evidence that it was done legally and okay I think we've got it we need an amended Notice of Disapproval. MIKE KIMACK : You will get it thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended Notice of Disapproval. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6997— DAVID HAZARD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David Hazard #6997. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's July 18, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a two (2) lot subdivision at 1) less November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting than the code required minimum lot width of 175 feet located at 1465 Harbor Lane (Adj. to Eugene's Creek) in Cutchogue. Mike this is you're also state your name for the record. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicants who are present at this hearing. A little bit of history on this one to give you some perspective. It had been done in 1973 as a four lot subdivision. It had gone through Health Department and had received approval. Had gone through the town Planning Board had received approval and unfortunately it was never recorded with the county and when my clients came back basically we found out not that they intended to do the four lot subdivision that had not been their intention but they believe that they had a valid subdivision. The Planning Board commission took the position that since it had not been recorded it was not valid. That was not necessarily my position because you can record anytime but we went on finding that simply because that was not what my client wanted to do. Before you now presentation is a two lot subdivision that we would respectfully request approval on that has two requests for variance. One is the width of one of the lots and (inaudible) width of the front yardage. To point out this in this area it still would retain both of the lots would be beyond the two acres and one of the lots would actually be would meet all of the would not require a variance at all. A variance is only on one lot which has the existing house on it but one of the things is I did do prior findings deliberations determinations for the area and found out that if you look at the tax map in the area there are other similar lots that were done in this nature. If you find that you can support this you will find that subdividing these two lots still leave the two largest lots in the whole area because even though it's in a R80 zone most of the lots have been set up prior to that. Most of the lots are less than two acres even in the R80 zone and the R40 zone is literally right next door so across the street and on both sides all the lots virtually all the lots even though after the subdivision the subdivided lots would still be larger than the existing lots on pretty much all three sides. It's a fairly wooded piece of property. The other house would really not be visible from the road at all and most of that would be maintained in place. I'm not quite sure I can add more. Are there any questions of me? MEMBER DANTES : I have a question. If you made it a flagged lot and divided it the other way such a front lot and a back lot would that then MIKE KIMACK : Yeah that had been brought up. It greatly diminishes the value of the property obviously to be fair about this situation on a flagged lot by putting it front to back. I know you don't have a decision from Planning and we'll talk about that a little bit but Planning is going to approve or be in favor of the subdivision (inaudible) subject to receiving some information on whether or not the existing designation of flagged wetlands is in fact an accurate disposition. That was something that you had raised also for us so get some information on so I can say that my clients had approached John Bredemeyer or approached the Board. They had been out on November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting the site Charlie Saunders took a series of notes and JMO had done the original wetlands layout about a year ago and I think they asked whether or not I think when looking at it they looked at the plan and they looked at they wondered whether or not in fact it was an accurate designation of wetlands so they asked my client to contact JMO to get a pretty much a reverification of what they had done a year ago. That has not yet occurred. He's tried several times to get a hold of Glen and JMO and they have not yet responded but Charlie is looking for a letter from JMO saying what we did a year ago still stand. That's essentially what it is and we hopefully will be able to get that letter and I respectfully ask that if you if we do find that we can close the hearing you close it conditional upon getting that letter prior to your two week at your Special hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think Mark is waiting on the LWRP until he gets the letter isn't that MIKE KIMACK :That I didn't know basically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have LWRP isn't that part of the correspondence. He was going to wait until the reflagging took place. MIKE KIMACK :There may not be a need for reflagging I mean in essence CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean the Planning Board has sent us a memorandum saying they support the variance for the reason you've stated that they would be conforming in lot size and so on. I have a question though because the Notice of Disapproval indicates that parcel one will have supposed to be required to have 175 feet in width and the survey indicates 141.93 but when I look at this survey this one I'm seeing one lot at 176 feet and another lot at 118.86 feet. So I don't know where the 141 comes from. MIKE KIMACK : That's the split line in the middle basically that's the middle of the lot Leslie that's how they split it up. If you look at the 175 line and I don't have it on there the 141 is measured pretty much across that particular section of the lot according to the code. You're allowed to measure off that way so when he measured it we don't have the 175 for the width of the lot at that location. We do meet it on the water, we do meet you know on the back line on both of the lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's not on the survey. They just calculated it based upon the way in which it can be calculated. Alright that clears that up. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So then to put simply with respect to this 141.93 that was the calculation made by the Building Department? November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yeah and it probably if you look at the map at the 175 line it's probably right adjacent to that particular section right there. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The 175 line of the lower lot? MIKE KIMACK : Yeah of the lot that doesn't require any of the variances. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Lot 2. MIKE KIMACK : Lot 2 which is now a vacant lot or a proposed vacant lot. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Showing the 175 foot MIKE KIMACK : Yeah the 141 across from there that's where the 141 would be. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So then you extend that line across MIKE KIMACK : Yeah and that's where they measured the 141. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : My question is when are we going to get the flagging done how can we close it unless we have the flagging done? MIKE KIMACK : Well there may not the thing is that we don't really to be frank about this I mean JMO did this a year ago. They are professional. They went out and flagged it. There was a question of whether or not that was in fact a correct location. Look it's up to them. We expect them to come back and submit a letter to Charlie and get a copy to you standing by what they did a year ago. I mean in a sense my client is relying on their professional ability to put it in the right spot. Now if they come back a year ago and say oops we made a mistake then mea culpa we'll have to live with it but right now you hire the company to go out there, flag it according to what they believe to be the wetlands designated line. Charlie is asking for a delineation pretty much stating that giving us a letter for our file that's what I flag I stand by it. If we do that we don't need a new reflagging we don't need a new survey. That's what our hope and expectation is. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I don't know what's wet there and what's not wet. MIKE KIMACK : Gerry I agree I agree although I will let you know you've been on the property. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes. MIKE KIMACK :The proposed house is up on that plateau. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yeah on the right hand side. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I mean the bottom line is that if they come back and JMO does a mea culpa and says oops I had to extend it and my client then has to come back and ask Nathan to go out there he has to reflag and Nathan has to resurvey and I've got to get the survey over to you and get the survey back alright we're losing time but that's what it is that particular time you know that's what it is but right now we don't expect to have to do that if in fact JMO will stand by it because wherever we put the house is not going to affect whether the wetland is ten feet one way or the other. The only thing that does is really if we have to move the line it makes the recalculation for wetland relative to planning to see whether in fact that changes that but we looked at it and we don't think it's going to be an issue. They've got they just got CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can't do anything until we get a LWRP determination and Mark is waiting for the confirmation of where the wetlands are. MIKE KIMACK : You're going to need more time than two weeks is what you're telling me. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. So you know I mean it's not that we would want to I don't see anything to be gained by another public hearing or anything like that. I think we'll just close it as soon as we can but in case it needs to be any correspondence back and forth you know it might just be better to adjourn it to the Special Meeting and then if you need more time adjourn it again and just leave it open until we get what we need and I'm sure there's not going to be any more questions but MIKE KIMACK : I think that would be appreciated giving us the opportunity because you're right we're not in control of the other factors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you're not so you know if I close it subject to receipt then there's a question and Mark says something and whatever then we're kind of snarled up rather than just able to answer it. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yeah then Mike would have to address it in public. MIKE KIMACK : Can we make the next two weeks between JMO and LWRP? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can just adjourn it to next month's regular meeting or you want or we can adjourn it for two weeks and then adjourn it MIKE KIMACK : And then adjourn it again. Give me the opportunity to see if I can pull it off and if not then I'll ask for an adjournment again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that alright with everybody? November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay fine so anyone else in the audience? VERA CUSUMANO : Vera Cusumano. I'm at 435 Briarwood Lane. We have a similar situation. We have four lots actually five lots on our lane and they're all individually owned but my I have no objection to this subdivision at all. As a matter of fact I would love it because there are very old growth trees on this lot and they are very close to my property and my house so I would love to see this cleared and developed and it would be very beneficial for the value of everybody around there because right now it looks not nice. It's very nasty looking from my property, my viewpoint from my property and that's all I have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're supporting the application? VERA CUSUMANO : I'm supporting it yeah I would like to see it cleared and developed and whatever you MIKE KIMACK : Vera can I ask you, your house is adjacent to where that other proposed house would be up on that plateau area? VERA CUSUMANO : No I'm adjacent to where the wetlands are. MIKE KIMACK : Okay. VERA CUSUMANO : I'm the next the house south of where those wetlands are. I have MIKE KIMACK :To let you know I think we CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay you guys are supposed to be talking to us. MIKE KIMACK : I'm sorry. We will have to have flag in area for Planning and for Trustees as to the cutting area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You still need Trustee approval. MIKE KIMACK : And we still need Trustee approval for when they walk out they'll see the cutting area around the proposed home on that vacant lot right now which I believe there is looking for that will open it up and take November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting VERA CUSUMANO : And clear out make it nice looking and not the trees won't fall on my house okay?Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, anyone else in the audience? So hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on November 171" MIKE KIMACK : And I'll keep my fingers crossed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #6998— DONNA and JOSEPH PRADAS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Donna and Joseph Pradas #6998. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 9, 2016 Amended August 29, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct a sunroom addition to a single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required rear yard minimum setback of 35 feet located at 425 Birch Drive in Laurel. DIANA LASPISA : Good afternoon Diana Laspisa with Murano Expediting Services 4 Hamilton Court Coram New York 11727 and I'm here with the applicants Mr. and Mrs. Pradas. We're here before you today requesting permission to construct a sunroom addition. It will be 18 foot 9 inches by 12 foot 6 inches onto the rear of the existing dwelling. The dwelling is currently November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting holding a 35 foot rear yard setback which is the requirement so any additional additions anything that they do to the house would need to come before the Board and we're asking for 22 foot 4 inches. The sunroom is a seasonally used room even though it has to hold the setback as an addition it is something that's seasonally used. The rear property line is screened I'm sure I believe some members had visited the site but I do have some photographs to submit as well showing the 15 foot high pine trees along the back so it won't be visible to the neighbors and they have spoken with their neighbors behind them and they have no objections. It's a summer home for them so if the Board has any questions I also did receive my last green card so I'll submit that up as well. MEMBER DANTES : First question is why not put this in a code conforming location? DIANA LASPISA : The problem is the only are where it would comply would be really their side yard. I mean it could only be the north side. The driveway is on the other side. The north side there's a chimney on that side of the house and it wouldn't they want to be able to access the sunroom from the kitchen and the dining room. Also the sun they get the most sun where the sunroom is proposed and actually I think it would be more beneficial for really the neighborhood in a sense for privacy for themselves and the neighborhood because if they put in on the side of the house then it's visible from the street. MEMBER DANTES : Are the other lots in the neighborhood are they similar size to the applicant's lot? DIANA LASPISA : No not really and the houses are different too. There's really this house is setback further. I tried to find conformity but when you don't have the same house on the same lot it's hard to find. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The proposed location there was an existing paver patio there right now right? DIANA LASPISA : Yes. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : When looking at your survey it looks like the septic system is going to be very close to the sunroom that you proposed do you realize that? I don't know if that's going to be a difficulty for you. It doesn't affect my opinion but it just something you might want to note if that is truly the if the location of the septic tank is 14 feet do you have to relocate the septic? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you come to the mic and state your name and then put that in the public record please. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh because this is possibly pile footings on this or something. JOSEPH PRADAS : I'm Joseph Pradas. I'm the owner. We are aware the septic tank. It's been looked at and was told that we shouldn't have any problem. The house was built in 2004, 2005 and you know that's the information that we've gotten that we shouldn't have to worry about septic tank or the cesspool. DIANA LASPISA : The sunroom will be flushed with the first floor of the home so it will be raised a little bit. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So this is really on piles so (inaudible) foundation. JOSEPH PRADAS : Yes it's on piles that's correct that's right it's on piles. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The only other comment was I didn't you get a very good elevation view except for like the way it's going to be framed but I guess that's okay. DIANA LASPISA : The elevation the main elevations are one is that the one that you saw one of eight. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay it's good enough for me. There's a lot of construction details that DIANA LASPISA : I know everybody says that. You should see the engineering calculations are like sixty pages and nobody want them. MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have no further questions I just wanted to comment on the location of the septic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, Gerry? MEMBER HORNING : What happened to the original Notice of Disapproval with the lot coverage? DIANA LASPISA : It was an error you know to be honest I think the architect never he has this all formatted in his computer and I think whatever job he worked on prior he didn't erase that lot area so the numbers just didn't yeah it didn't match. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The dangers of AutoCAD. DIANA LASPISA : It never was an issue with lot coverage. MEMBER HORNING : And the proposed sunroom is on the south side of the building facing the direction of the sun most of the year is that correct? November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting DIANA LASPISA : Exactly that was the main reason for the placement. MEMBER HORNING : Yeah I mean I hate to kind of hard to put a sunroom on the north side of the building. DIANA LASPISA : Yeah it would be a shade room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, put your hostas in there keep them away from the deer. DIANA LASPISA : Expensive green house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just aware of this entire described subdivision it's been in existence for many years and it's unique that this particular piece of property comprises three of those lots if not you have exactly three one two three and so it's automatic that you have to have a rear yard setback. DIANA LASPISA : Yeah unfortunately it's just the way it's situated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The property is beautiful the extra lot is wonderful. Anything else from the Board, anyone else want to say anything? Alright no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. MEMBER GOEHRINGR : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting HEARING #6999—THOMAS BYRNE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas Byrne #6999. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15F and the Building Inspector's June 21, 2016 amended August 18, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory shed at 1) proposed accessory shed located at less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 2345 Bayview Avenue (adj. to Hashamomuck Pond) in Southold. Is someone here to represent the application? Please go to the podium if you would and speak into the mic its being recorded just state your name for the record. THOMAS BYRNE : My name is Thomas Byrne. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this you have waterfront property and two front yards. The code permits a front yard location for a shed on waterfront property. This is an 80 square foot and 8 by 10 foot shed and you're proposing a 5 foot front yard setback. The code permits front yard sheds as long as they meet the principal setback of the front yard which is 35 feet. So what would you like us to know about your application? THOMAS BYRNE : One of the thing I did some tracking I sent out all of the letters in the required time one of them I got a letter back with the address he was unknown at that point I could not find out where the company was any longer and the other I did a tracking and it has never been picked up by the party it was sent to so I can bring this to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just give that to Kim please. THOMAS BYRNER :The reason I asked for the variance if we were to put it 35 feet off the road it would pretty much be almost in the center of our yard and kind of block our pathway to get in and out of the existing garage. Also the location of it wouldn't be any different than many other garages along our street along the same side. Many of them have been pre-existing I'm sure but they're a driveway right into a garage there and I didn't think this would alter the look of the neighborhood at all. We're landscaping it already started doing some landscaping there to create a green barrier between the road and where we'd like to place the shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've all done a site inspection. Everyone's gone out to see the property. It looks like the house that's right next door to you has a two car accessory garage. That looks like it's sitting on the road. Is that the same or is that closer to the street than what you're proposing do you know? 5 November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting THOMAS BYRNE : I believe that would be probably a little closer maybe even a few feet closer. I believe that the street is listed as a fifty foot diameter down from the middle of the street which although I'm asking for I think five feet beyond that. It would really be a good fifteen, twenty feet from fifteen feet from the road itself. I believe their garage is about probably a little closer than I want to place the front of their garage. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a question? Is there any reason why you can't move it closer to the house? I know you just made a statement regarding that but I mean in effect it would not impede the driveway if you did that and I'm referring to that portion of I guess it's a trapezoid that you're showing on this THOMAS BYRNE : That's right that's part of the problem with the property it's a trapezoidal piece of property so it comes in fairly significantly from the roadside down to where the house is it narrows where it is we'd have to move it further from our neighbor's property closer to the driveway. It would get in the way one of the other reasons is a bit of a selfish reason. My wife would like to have a small vegetable garden. If we move it closer to the house it would block any of the sunlight that would hit the garden. So it would be on the opposite side. It would allow us to have a southern exposure for some vegetable garden. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It's just a very strange location and I'm not criticizing your property it's a beautiful piece of property. It's a dead end and it makes it even nicer but I really think you could move it closer to that I'm referring to it as a trapezoid that you did the surveyor's put in there okay and get it off the road a little more. That's just my opinion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? MEMBER HORNING : I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken? MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No I'm fine thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I've driven up and down that street about twenty times. It looks as though none of the accessory garages have principal front yard setbacks so it's a very small shed I mean it's 8 by 10. What's the height? THOMAS BYRNE : I think it goes to 8 feet. Can I talk about the purpose for it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting THOMAS BYRNE : I can't manage to get the snow blower and the pressure washer down the stairs into the basement anymore. My back won't let me do it and I just wanted something and we want to use the garage for the car. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Is there any electricity in it sir? THOMAS BYRNE : No there won't be will not be. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No plumbing no anything. THOMAS BYRNE : No plumbing no electricity in the shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I also notice that you have a large hedgerow that screens your property from the neighbor's so at that height there's not going to be any impact on the adjacent neighbor and you are at a dead end. I mean there's probably only one other house that's across the street that actually would even (inaudible) THOMAS BYRNE : It doesn't affect her view at all. I was actually talking to her about when she received the letter I took her for a tour and she said oh that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board at this point? I guess there's no one else in the audience to address the application. Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER HORNING : Aye. MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye. MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) i November 3, 2016 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature : Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : November 10, 2016 �Q